Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Justice, freedom and security in europe since 2005 : an evaluation of The Hague programme and action plan - An extended Report on the evaluation of the Hague Programme {COM(2009) 263 final} {SEC(2009) 765 final} {SEC(2009) 767 final}
Date: 2009-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, activity report, area of freedom, security and justice, common foreign and security policy, foreign policy, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, police cooperation, public safety, third country

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.6.2009 
SEC(2009) 766 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY IN EUROPE SINCE 2005:  

AN EVALUATION OF THE HAGUE PROGRAMME AND ACTION PLAN 

An extended report on the evaluation of the Hague Programme  

{COM(2009) 263 final} 
{SEC(2009) 765 final} 
{SEC(2009) 767 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT 

1.1. 

Purpose 

This  document  evaluates  in  detail  the  extent  to  which  implementation  of  the  Hague 
Programme1 and the related Action Plan2 has helped strengthen freedom, security and justice 
in  the  European  Union.  It  forms  part  of  the  Commission  communication,  'Justice,  Freedom 
and Security since 2005: An evaluation of the Hague Programme and Action Plan', which is 
published together with the Communication on the future priorities for the next multi annual 
programme ("Stockholm Programme").  

1.2. 

Background and scope  

The  multi-annual  programme  to  strengthen  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  –  the 
Hague Programme – was endorsed by the European Council of 4-5 November 2004. It was 
followed by the Action Plan, presented by the Commission and endorsed by the Council, for 
translating  the  priorities  set  out  in  the  programme  into  concrete  actions  with  a  specific 
timetable for implementation. In presenting this Action Plan, the Commission indentified ten 
main and equally-important priorities on which efforts should be concentrated3.  

Other plans and strategic papers in specific policy areas are also covered  by this  document. 
These include: 

•  the  EU  Action  Plans  on  Drugs  of  20054  and  20085,  following  the  European  Strategy  on 

Drugs 2005-20126;  

•  the  Communication  on  perspectives  for  the  development  of  mutual  recognition  of 

decisions in criminal matters and of mutual trust7; 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

European Council Presidency conclusions 14292/1/04 rev 1, Annex 1 to the Presidency Conclusions of 
the 4-5 November Brussels European Council, December 2004. 
Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, 
security and justice in the European Union, 2005/C 198/01, OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, p. 1. 
COM(2005)  184  final,  "The  Hague  Programme:  ten  priorities  for  the  next  five  years".  The  priorities 
identified are: 1) fundamental rights and citizenship: creating fully fledged policies; 2) the fight against 
terrorism:  working  toward  a  global  response;  3)  a  common  asylum  area:  establishing  an  effective 
harmonized procedure in accordance with the European Union's values and humanitarian tradition; 4) 
migration management: defining a balanced approach; 5) integration: maximising the positive impact of 
migration  on  our  society  and  economy;  6)  internal  borders,  external  borders  and  visas:  developing 
integrated  management  of  external  borders  for  a  safer  Europe;  7)  privacy  and  security  in  sharing 
information: striking the right balance; 8) organised crime: developing a strategic concept; 9)civil and 
criminal  justice:  guaranteeing  an  effective  European  area  of  justice  for  all;  10)  freedom,  security  and 
justice:  sharing  responsibility  and  solidarity.  Specific  emphasis  was  placed  on  implementation  and 
evaluation. 
COM(2005) 45 final, Communication on a EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008); EU drugs action plan 
(2005-2008) endorsed by the Council in 2005, 2005/C 168/01, OJ C 168, 8.7.2005, p. 1. 
COM(2008) 567 final, Communication on a EU Drugs Action Plan for 2009-2012; EU Drugs Action 
Plan for 2009-2012 endorsed by the Council in 2008, 2008/C 326/09, OJ C 326, 20.12.2008, p. 7. 
EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) endorsed by the Council in 2004, Council Document 15074/04. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  the Communication “developing a strategic concept on tackling organised crime”8,  

•  the Communication on the common immigration policy9; and  

•  the policy plan on asylum10.  

This  report  also  takes  account  of  the  contributions  made  by  the  recently  created  general 
financial  programmes  on  "fundamental  rights  and  justice",  "solidarity  and  management  of 
migration flows" and "security and safeguarding liberties"11 to help achieve the multi-annual 
policy objectives. 

In  2006,  the  Commission  presented  a  first  intermediate  political  assessment  of  the  Hague 
Programme12,  which  gave  fresh  impetus  to  implementation  of  the  programme,  proposing 
adjustments on specific issues and highlighting the principal shortcomings that needed to be 
overcome13.  

Evaluations  and  implementation  reports  of  specific  and  individual  instruments,  scoreboards 
published  annually  by  the  Commission  since  200614,  impact  assessments  published  by  the 
Commission  for  each  major  initiative,  and  outcomes  of  consultations  with  stakeholders  are 
also sources of information for this document.  

1.3. 

Structure  

This document deals with each of the policy areas in the order, by and large, in which they 
appear in the Hague Programme. To aid cross-referencing, the corresponding sections of the 
Hague Programme and the Communication are indicated in contents pages at the end of this 
report. The Communication seeks to draw out the principal themes from the lessons learned, 
and  therefore  there  is  not  always  a  strict  correspondence  between  the  structure  of  this 
document and the communication. 

Each policy area is evaluated in three sections. 

Objectives  set  out  in  the  Hague  Programme  and,  where  applicable  in  other  relevant 

I. 
strategies.  

7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

14 

COM(2005)  195  final,  Communication  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  judicial  decisions  in  criminal 
matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States. 
COM(2005) 232 final. 
COM(2008) 359 final.  
COM(2008) 360 final.. 
COM(2005) 122 final, 123 final and 124 final respectively. 
COM(2006) 331 final. 
The  sectors  concerned  were:  (1)  fundamental  rights  and  citizenship,  (2)  development  of  the  second 
phase  of  asylum,  (3)  migration  management,  (4)  integrated  management  of  external  frontiers  and 
interoperability of information systems, (5) follow-up of mutual recognition programmes (in civil and 
criminal justice), (6) access to information needed to combat terrorism and organised crime, (7) fight 
against terrorism and organised crime, including the future of Europol, (8) financial perspectives in the 
area of FSJ, (9) external dimension of FSJ, (10) implementation and evaluation of FSJ. In addition, the 
Commission proposed a "bridging clause" to overcome a number of recurrent problems in the decision-
making process, particularly concerning Title VI EU. 
COM(2006) 333 final, COM(2007) 373 final and COM(2008) 373 final. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
II.  Main  developments  in  terms  of  implementation  at  EU  or  Member  State  level  with 
regard to the objectives, including achievements, progress and lessons learnt.  

III. 
Future  challenges  which,  on  the  basis  of  the  main  developments  and  future 
projections, are expected to require EU action in the area in the next multi annual programme.  

A  final  chapter  identifies  common  trends  that  should  guide  future  work  in  all  JLS  policy 
areas. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

GENERAL ORIENTATION 

2.1. 

Protection of fundamental rights  

I. 

Objectives 

One  of  the  underlying  objectives  of  the  Hague  Programme  was  to  improve  the  common 
capability  of  the  Union  and  its  Member  States  to  guarantee  fundamental  rights.  The  Hague 
Programme and the Action Plan called not only for the full respect of fundamental rights, but 
also for active promotion of those rights. The Programme referred to the incorporation of the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  into  the  Constitutional  Treaty  and  to  the  accession  to  the 
European  Convention  for  the  protection  of  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms.  It  also 
recalled  the  Union's  firm  commitment  to  opposing  any  form  of  racism,  anti-Semitism  and 
xenophobia and welcomed the Commission's Communication on the extension of the mandate 
of  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia  towards  a  Fundamental 
Rights  Agency15.  Finally,  it  referred  to  the  mainstreaming  of  fundamental  rights  in  certain 
specific JLS areas, such as in the integration of third-country nationals policy, the return and 
re-admission  policy,  biometrics  and  information  systems,  exchange  of  information,  fight 
against terrorism and judicial cooperation in civil matters. 

II. 

Main developments  

The new EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) opened its doors in early 2007. It built on 
the  existing  European  Monitoring  Centre  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia  (EUMC),  whiose 
mandate was broadened to become the FRA. To make the Agency fully operational, a number 
of  measures  had  to  be  adopted,  in  particular  a  multi-annual  framework  that  determines  the 
thematic areas of its activities16 and an agreement between the Community and the Council of 
Europe17. 

The same year, in the absence of a multi-annual framework, the FRA carried out its tasks on 
the  same  thematic  areas  as  the  EUMC,  i.e.  fight  against  racism,  xenophobia  and  related 
intolerance, homophobia and children's rights, following specific requests from the European 
Parliament and the Commission. The Agency adopted its first work programme under the new 
FRA multi-annual framework in 200818.  

Since  it  was  only  created  recently,  it  is  too  early  to  evaluate  the  work  of  the  Agency. 
However, since its creation, the FRA has already provided input on racism, xenophobia and 
homophobia.  

15 
16 

17 

18 

COM(2005) 280 final. 
Council  Decision  2008/203/EC  of  28  February  2008  implementing  Regulation  (EC)  No  168/2007  as 
regards  the  adoption  of  a  Multi-annual  Framework  for  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental 
Rights for 2007-2012, OJ L 63, 7.3.2008, p. 14. 
Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, OJ L 186, 15.7.2008, p.7. 
FRA Annual Work Programme 2009, available at:  
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/wp09_en.pdf. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Important work was carried out in the area of data protection19. The first Commission report 
on  the  implementation  of  the  1995  data  protection  directive20  concluded  that  there  was 
considerable scope for improving its implementation and included a specific work programme 
for that purpose. An assessment of the work conducted under this programme21 suggests that 
the  directive  lays  down  a  general  legal  framework  which  is  substantially  appropriate  and 
technologically neutral, and outlines the prospects for the future as a condition for success in a 
number  of  policy  areas  in  the  light  of  Article  8  of  the  European  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights, which recognise the protection of personal data as a fundamental right.  

The  Commission  announced  that  it  will  continue  to  monitor  implementation  of  the  data 
protection directive, to work with all stakeholders to further reduce national divergences, and 
to  study  the  need  for  sector-specific  legislation  to  apply  data  protection  principles  to  new 
technologies in order to satisfy public security needs. 

The Commission  is  encouraging the use of privacy-enhancing  technologies (PETs)22, which 
can  help  to  design  information  and  communication  systems  and  services  in  a  way  that 
minimises  the  collection  and  use  of  personal  data  and  facilitates  compliance  with  data 
protection rules. The use of PETs should make breaches of certain data protection rules more 
difficult and/or help to detect them. The Communication on PETs expresses the intention to 
continue to promote these technologies and support their development, and to encourage data 
controllers and consumers to use them.  

When  adopting  the  Communication  "Towards  an  EU  Strategy  on  the  Rights  of  the 
Child"23, the Commission proposed to establish a cross-cutting approach to both the internal 
and the external dimension of a wide range of EU policies (such as civil and criminal justice, 
social  protection,  development  cooperation,  trade  negotiation,  education  and  health).  The 
document  included  specific  short-term  measures,  such  as  a  single  telephone  number  for 
missing  and  exploited  children  and  also  an  analysis  of  possible  public-private  partnerships 
with  the  banking  and  credit  card  sectors  to  curb  the  purchase  of  images  on  the  internet 
depicting sexual abuse of children. The Communication also anticipated the need to identify 
priorities for future EU action, to improve the effectiveness of EU policies vis-à-vis the rights 
of the child, to increase co-operation with stakeholders and to help children to enforce their 
rights. 

Within this Strategy, the European Forum for the rights of the child was created with the aim 
of  increasing  the  mainstreaming  of  children's  rights  in  EU  legislation,  policies  and 
programmes.  Several  meetings  took  place  to  discuss  possible  mechanisms  for  the  future 
participation  of  children  in  the  Forum,  how  to  protect  children  against  sexual  exploitation, 
child  poverty  (with  special  attention  on  the  situation  of  Roma  children)  and  the  possible 
introduction  of  "Child  Alert"  mechanisms  in  all  Member  States.  The  Forum  brings  together 
the  Members  States,  the  European  Institutions,  the  Council  of  Europe,  UNICEF,  the 
Ombudsman and NGOs and is chaired by the Commission.  

19 

20 
21 
22 
23 

For personal  data  processed  in  the  framework  of police  and judicial  co-operation  in  criminal  matters, 
see section 3.1 "Improving the exchange of information". 
COM(2003) 265 final. 
COM(2007) 87 final. 
COM(2007) 228 final. 
COM(2006) 367 final.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Work  has  been  launched  to  promote  "Child  Alert"  systems  in  the  Member  States,  the  aim 
being  to  involve  the  public  in  the  search  for information  about  an  abducted  child.  Effective 
trans-border cooperation is possible if national systems are in place, with clear contact points 
and  readily  transmissible  data  when  trans-border  cases  occur.  The  Commission  presented  a 
staff working paper on best practices for launching cross-border child abduction alerts to the 
authorities of the Member States24, describing possible ways of cooperation among Member 
States when such situations occur. The Council's conclusions of 28 November 2008 supported 
this initiative25. 

Other measures, such as the hotline for reporting missing children, were not followed up by 
Member States26.  

The  objective  of  the  2005  Communication  on  a  methodology  for  systematic  and  rigorous 
monitoring of compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights27 was to ensure that all 
draft proposals were checked systematically and thoroughly for their respect of fundamental 
rights. To achieve this objective, there is systematic monitoring of the respect of fundamental 
rights during the drafting of legislative proposals before they are adoption by the Commission 
(including  in  the  impact  assessment,  when  appropriate).  Moreover,  for  the  most  relevant 
cases, follow-up is provided by the Group of Commissioner on Fundamental Rights, Anti-
discrimination and Equal Opportunities, as well as throughout the legislative procedure. 

On 12 December 2007, the Presidents of the Commission, the European Parliament and the 
Council  signed  and  solemnly  proclaimed  the  Charter  on  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  EU  in 
Strasbourg.  This  second  proclamation  was  considered  necessary  since  the  Lisbon  Treaty 
provides  for  the  Charter  to  have  the  same  legal  value  as  the  Treaties  and  the  Charter 
proclaimed in 2000 required some adaptation for it to have such legally binding effects.  

European funding was provided to support the EU's and Member States' actions in the area 
of  fundamental  rights  through  the  specific  programme  on  "fundamental  rights  and 
citizenship"28, a specific programme within the general programme "Fundamental Rights and 
Justice", which will continue to provide funding for the period 2007-2013. It is premature to 
assess  its  real  impact,  as  the  first  set  of  projects  financed  is  still  ongoing.  A  mid-term 
evaluation  of  the  programme  will  take  place  in  2011  to  assess  asses  how  well  is  this 
programme contributed to the achievement of the overall policy on fundamental rights. 

The  Daphne  III  programme,  a  specific  financial  programme  on  the  fight  against  violence 
against  children,  young  people  and  women  and  to  protect  victims  and  groups  at  risk, 

24 
25 
26 

27 
28 

SEC(2008) 2912 final. 
Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 34, adopting Council document 14612/2/08. 
On  15  February  2007,  the  Commission  adopted  the  Decision  2007/116/EC  on  reserving  the  national 
numbering range beginning with 116 for harmonised numbers for harmonised services of social value, 
to establish a hotline for reporting missing children: 116 000. At today, the numbers is operational in  
10  Member  States:  Belgium,  France,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Romania and Slovakia. 
COM(2005) 172 final. 
Council Decision No 2007/252/JHA of 19 April 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific 
programme Fundamental rights and citizenship as part of the General programme Fundamental Rights 
and Justice, OJ L 110, 27.4.2007, p. 33. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
was  adopted  in  200729.  This  programme  follows  on  from  the  Daphne  I  and  II  programmes, 
which  were  also  designed  to  prevent  and  combat  violence.  Daphne  provides  for  funding  on 
the exchange of best practices, protection of victims and data collection. The programme was 
much  appreciated  by  its  beneficiaries  and  other  stakeholders  since  it  clearly  responded  to  a 
need and did not duplicate other national, regional or international initiatives. The evaluation 
positively assessed the management of the programme and its well established procedures and 
support mechanisms. A mid-term evaluation of the Daphne III programme will take place in 
2011. 

III. 

Future challenges 

There  is  a  need  to  address  the  increased  demand  for  Commission's  action  on  fundamental 
rights  issues  within  the  EU.  Since  2005,  a  number  of  requests  for  EU  action  have  been 
addressed to the Commission by the European Parliament30, the Council and civil society. 

Fundamental  rights  issues  are  being  raised  more  and  more  by  the  Court  of  Justice,  in 
particular on issues involving JLS legislation: 

Period 

decisions 
ECJ 
to 
referring 
Fundamental  Rights 
in their reasoning 

decisions 
ECJ 
to 
referring 
Fundamental  rights 
and  relating  to  the 
JLS areas 

decisions 
ECJ 
to 
referring 
Fundamental  rights 
by 
Grand 
the 
Chamber 

2000-2005 
years) 

2005-now 
years) 

(i.e.  5 

+ 36 

(i.e.  4 

+ 50 

+ 7 

+ 19 

+ 19 

+ 23 

In 2006, the European Court of Justice referred explicitly for the first time to the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights in its reasoning concerning the action for annulment of certain provisions 
of the directive on the right to family reunification31. Since this ruling, the Court has referred 
to  the  Charter  in  its  reasoning  in  more  than  10  cases,  the  majority  of  which  by  the  Grand 
Chamber.  

The  number  of  citizen's  letters  complaining  about  alleged  breaches  of  fundamental  rights  is 
very  high.  Most  of  them  raises  questions  of  respect  for  fundamental  rights  in  the  Member 
States in areas that do not relate to Community legislation. According to Eurobarometer, 72% 

29 

30 

31 

Decision No 779/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 establishing 
for the period 2007-2013 a specific programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young 
people  and  women  and  to  protect  victims  and  groups  at  risk  (Daphne  III  programme)  as  part  of  the 
General Programme Fundamental Rights and Justice, OJ L 173, 3.7.2007, p. 19. 
The number of parliamentary questions whose title refers to "fundamental rights" quadrupled between 
2002 and 2007. 
Case C-540/03, European Parliament v. Council of the European Union. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  EU  nationals  would  favour  greater  European  influence  in  the  protection  of  fundamental 
rights, including children's rights, while 18% expressed the opposite opinion32. 

The Commission can only intervene as guardian of the Treaties if the situation relates to the 
implementation  of  the  EU  law.  This  role  will  become  much  more  important  given  the 
increasing amount of legislation in the JLS domain which has to be implemented by Member 
States. The challenge for the future will be to address the increasing demand for action in the 
area  of  fundamental  rights.  There  will  be  a  need  to  focus  fundamental  rights  policy  on 
strategic objectives that can be achieved within the remit of EU powers. The intervention by 
the Commission is also required in domains outside its competence or following complaints 
based  on  article  7  of  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union  (TEU),  which  establishes  a 
mechanism  of  last  resort  that  has  never  been  used  by  the  Commission  and  the  European 
Parliament.  

This high level of expectations reveals that there is a clear need for more explanations of what 
the Commission can do in this area and on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is shown 
and  confirmed  by  the  above-mentioned  Eurobarometer  survey,  according  to  which,  on 
average,  one  EU  citizen  in  three  would  like  to  be  better  informed  about  the  promotion  and 
protection  of  fundamental  rights,  including  children's  rights  (33%).  A  deeper  analysis 
revealed  that  in  18  of  the  27  Member  States  the  promotion  and  protection  of  fundamental 
rights  is  the  aspect  on  which  the  largest  number  of  European  citizens  would  like  greater 
information.  Interest  in  this  regard  across  all  EU  countries  varies  from  25%  in  Spain  and 
Poland  to  55%  in  Cyprus.  Moreover,  another  survey  on  citizenship  concluded  that 
“respondents’ awareness of the 'Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union' is far 
from widespread – half of those interviewed have never heard of it”33. 

No stabilisation of the legislative activity in the JLS domain was recorded during the Hague 
Programme.  In  relation  to  the  2000-2004  period,  the  number  of  adopted  instruments  in  the 
JLS area since 2005 has constantly increased (since 2005: + 218; between 2000-2004: + 208). 
This  trend  is  expected  to  continue  the  development  and  implementation  of  this  acquis  will 
require particular attention as regards fundamental rights aspects.. 

As  stated  earlier,  the  Commission  has  already  adopted  a  specific  methodology  for  a 
systematic and rigorous check of legal initiatives against the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
The practical enforcement of which will need to be strengthened. In particular, it is important 
to  ensure  that  the  proposals  of  the  Commission  remain  compliant  with  fundamental  rights 
throughout the negotiations in Parliament and Council.  

The  Treaty  of  Lisbon  provides  the  legal  basis  for  accession  of  the  European  Union  to  the 
European  Convention  of  Human  Rights.  The  accession,  which  will  complete  the  system  of 
protection of fundamental rights in the EU, will be an important goal in the years to come. 

The Union's action against racism and xenophobia should be intensified, in particular in the 
light of the economic crises, which spark off bouts of xenophobia.  

32 

33 

Special Eurobarometer 290, "The role of the European Union in Justice, Freedom and Security policy 
areas". 
Flash Eurobarometer 213, "European Union Citizenship". 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Since 2005, trends reveal that these phenomena are still all too present in the EU. According 
to  the  FRA  Agency's  2008  Annual  Report34,  even  if  it  is  difficult  to  make  generalisations 
because  of  the  weaknesses  in  statistics,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  the  majority  of  the  eleven 
Member States collecting data on racist crime experienced a general upward trend in recorded 
crime in the period 2000-2006. Three out of the four Member States collecting data on anti-
Semitic crime experienced a general upward trend between 2001 and 2006; and two out of the 
four Member States collecting data on crime with an extremist right-wing motive experienced 
a general upward trend between 2000 and 2006. 

In addition to this, the 2008 Eurobarometer survey on discrimination in the EU35 shows that 
62%  of  Europeans  think  that  discrimination  due  to  ethnic  origin  is  widespread  in  their 
country; 51% due to sexual orientation, 45% due to disability, 42% due to religion/belief or 
age and 36% due to gender.  

The implementation of the Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia36 will add to the 
existing EU legal framework and offers a new tool for fighting racism and xenophobia. 

Eurobarometer  surveys  and  several  studies  and  discussions  at  EU  level  have  demonstrated 
that the awareness of data protection issues and rules need to be enhanced, particularly – but 
not only – in the light of new technologies. According to a 2008 Eurobarometer37, a majority 
of EU citizens showed concern about data protection issues: 64% of survey participants said 
they  were  concerned  as  to  whether  organisations  that  held  their  personal  data  handled  this 
data  appropriately  and  not  even  half  of  respondents  (48%)  thought  that  their  data  were 
properly  protected  in  their  own  countries.  A  majority  even  feared  that  national  legislation 
could  not  cope  with  the  growing  number  of  people  leaving  personal  data  on  the  internet 
(54%). A vast majority also felt that their fellow citizens had low levels of awareness about 
data  protection  (77%).  Most  European  internet  users  feel  uneasy  when  transmitting  their 
personal data over the internet: 82% of internet users reasoned that data transmission over the 
web was not sufficiently secure. 

The current legal framework on data protection is divided among several legal bases, which 
can undermine its effectiveness. How existing secondary law (especially of the data protection 
directive) operates needs to be examined to improve implementation, interpretative guidelines 
and/or possible amendments to the current framework.  

Against  this  background,  there  should  perhaps  be  an  open  reflection  on  the  data  protection 
legal  framework  in  the  light  of  possible  developments  towards  a  single  regime.  The 
Commission has already set up a group of experts (GEX-PD) to help it identify the challenges 
involved  in  protecting  personal  data  in  the  EU,  bearing  in  mind  the  development  of  new 
technologies,  globalisation  and  matters  of  public  security,  and  to  put  forward  proposals  to 
successfully address the new challenges.  

34 
35 

36 

37 

Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/ar08p2_en.pdf. 
Special  Eurobarometer  296,  "Discrimination  in  the  European  Union:  Perceptions,  Experiences  and 
Attitudes". 
Council  Framework  Decision  2008/913/JHA  of  28 November  2008  on  combating  certain  forms  and 
expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. 
Flash Eurobarometer 225, "Data Protection in the European Union. Citizens' Perceptions". 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  the  age  of  globalisation  and  enhanced  cooperation  on  law  enforcement,  there  is  an  ever 
increasing need to exchange personal data with third countries. The EU is faced with growing 
demands from stakeholders to facilitate international data transfers from the EU, be it a wider 
use  of  its  adequacy  policy  or  through  new  instruments  for  such  transfers.  Hence,  third 
countries have to deal increasingly with the European data protection system. Therefore, there 
is  a  need  to  develop  a  comprehensive  approach  in  this  area  in  our  relations  with  third 
countries.  The  EU  needs  to  play  a  major  role  in  developing  global  standards  through 
international instruments. To that end, the EU should be present in international forums and  
play a leading role in promoting international standards. 

On  totalitarian  crimes  –  or  crimes  perpetrated  by  totalitarian  regimes  and  committed  on 
other  grounds  –  and  as  requested  by  the  Council,  the  Commission  is  due  to  report  to  the 
Council on whether an instrument is needed to cover publicly condoning, denying or grossly 
trivializing  crimes  of  genocide,  crimes  against  humanity  and  war  crimes  directed  against  a 
group of persons defined by reference to criteria other than race, colour, religion, descent or 
national or ethnic origin, such as social status or political convictions. The European Union’s 
role can only be to facilitate this process by encouraging discussion and furthering the sharing 
of experiences. It is of course for the Member States to find their own way forward when it 
comes to dealing with victims' expectations and promoting reconciliation.  

The situation of children around the world remains very difficult: the condition of poverty, 
neglect  and  exploitation  in  which  millions  of  children  live  cannot  be  disregarded.  Despite 
major  progress  in  some  areas,  much  remains  to  be  done.  The  violence  inflicted  on  children 
both within and outside the EU is varied in nature, such as within their family, at school or by 
organised  crime.  In  the  EU,  19%  of  children  are  at  risk  of  poverty,  which  dramatically 
decreases their chances of having a good life and increases their risk of exclusion. The 2008 
Eurobarometer on the rights of the child38 showed that 33% of the children interviewed were 
not  aware  of  their  rights  and  that  82%  said  that  neither  they,  nor  anyone  else  in  their  age 
group that they knew, had ever tried to seek help when they thought that their rights had been 
violated; moreover, 79% of the respondents would not know how to go about defending their 
rights and whom to contact. All this clearly show the need to step up EU action and to defend 
the rights of children within and outside the EU. 

As regards violence against women, in a study from 2006, the Council of Europe estimated 
that  one-fifth  to  one-quarter  of  all  women  in  Europe  have  experienced  physical  violence  at 
least  once  during  their  adult  lives,  and  more  than  one-tenth  have  suffered  sexual  violence 
involving the use of force. Figures for all forms of violence, including stalking, are as high as 
45%.  More  significantly,  for  women  –  unlike  men,  who  also  encounter  a  great  deal  of 
physical violence – the majority of such violent acts are carried out by men in their immediate 
social environment, most often by partners and ex-partners39.  

Although  the  Commission  has  a  limited  mandate  to  initiate  legislation  in  the  domain  of 
violence against women (restricted to trafficking and sexual exploitation), it has shown via a 
number of actions, in particular the Daphne Programme, that combating violence has become 

38 
39 

Flash Eurobarometer 235, "The Rights of the Child". 
Council  of  Europe,  "Combating  violence  against  women  –  Stocktaking  study  on  the  measures  and 
actions taken in the Council of Europe member states", 2006. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
an  issue  of  paramount  importance.  In  particular,  one  of  the  priority  areas  for  EU  action  on 
gender equality that the Commission included in its "Roadmap for equality between women 
and  men  (2006-2010)"40  was  the  eradication  of  gender-based  violence  and  trafficking.  The 
political pressure on the Commission to take concrete measures is increasing and calls for a 
clear long-term strategy.  

40 

COM(2006) 92 final. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2. 

Evaluation and monitoring 

I. 

Objectives 

In a bid to provide European citizens with better and more effective instruments in the area of 
Justice,  Freedom  and  Security,  the  Hague  Programme  called  for  regular  assessments  of  the 
implementation and effects of the measures adopted. To this end, the Commission was asked 
to  present  annual  implementation  reports  on  the  Hague  Programme,  along  with  systematic, 
objective and impartial assessment of the effectiveness of those measures and recommended 
solutions to the problems encountered.  

II. 

Main developments 

The  Commission  responded  in  2006  and  presented  a  package  of  communications  on  the 
implementation and evaluation of JLS policies. 

The  Communication  "Evaluation  of  EU  Policies  on  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice"41 
launched a debate on the establishment of a strategic evaluation mechanism of JLS policies. 
This mechanism was based on a three-step approach: (1) information gathering and sharing; 
(2) analysis of the information and data collected; (3) in-depth specific evaluations of selected 
areas.  This  mechanism  did  not  gain  the  necessary  support  within  the  Council,  as  Member 
States  perceived  it  as  too  demanding  and  burdensome,  and  therefore  was  not  fully 
implemented.  However,  in  line  with  the  Commission's  long-standing  commitment  to  
evaluation,  specific  legislation,  instruments,  actions  and  programmes  have  been  assessed 
through the period of the Hague Programme, providing useful appraisal of how they operate 
and  proposing  constructive  recommendations  for  possible  improvements  (the  evaluation  of 
the  Dublin  regulation  and  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  2005-2008  can  be  mentioned  as 
examples).  

The peculiarity of JLS policy, a complex, multilayer and diverse domain, is reflected in the 
way in which evaluations are currently organised: they are very different in objective (internal 
and  external  evaluations,  progress  reports,  peer  reviews,  etc.)  and  in  scope  (evaluation  of 
programmes,  legislation,  policies)  and  are  often  at  a  different  stage  of  development. 
Furthermore, it is still difficult and sometimes problematic to collect and compare statistical 
data: improving this situation will continue to be a priority in the coming years. However, to 
increase  the  quality,  reduce  discrepancies  and  enhance  the  comparability  and  usefulness  of 
evaluation  results,  it  is  essential  to  apply  clear  and  specific  horizontal  principles  to  all  JLS 
evaluations. 

Finally,  the  Communication  "Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Hague  programme  for 
2005"42 presented the first yearly implementation report (or "scoreboard"), giving a snapshot 
of the measures implemented both at the EU level (whether the EU institutions adopted the 
planned  measures  on  time)  and  at  national  level  (whether  the  national  administrations 

41 
42 

COM(2006) 332 final. 
COM(2006) 333 final. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implemented the adopted measures in good time). This kind of implementation reports have 
been published every year since 200643. 

III. 

Future challenges 

The  Commission  is  willing  to  maintain  the  established  practice  of  presenting  an  annual 
scoreboard  on  the  implementation  of  the  actions  foreseen  in  the  next  multi-annual 
programme. 

To  make  evaluation  more  systematic  and  effective,  the  idea  of  launching  new  evaluation 
mechanisms  for  sectors  that  still  lack  systematic  monitoring  and  evaluation  should  be 
considered.  This  would  make  for  a  clearer  assessment  of  the  use  and  impacts  of  these 
instruments. Sector-based mechanisms (such as the specific tracking method provided for by 
the  European  Pact  on  Immigration  and  Asylum) can  meet  the  specific  needs  of  each  policy 
field more quickly and efficiently and enhance policy-making.  

The  introduction  of  clear  common  horizontal  principles  for  all  evaluations  should  allow  the 
comparability of theirs results. New sector-based mechanisms and clear horizontal principles 
for  evaluation  should  allow  for  the  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  instruments  adopted,  of 
each policy area as well as coherence and contribution to the development of the JLS area. It 
should not add – insofar as possible – any unnecessary burden on Member States and existing 
evaluation mechanisms.  

This will help the Commission to assess the impact of JLS policies in good time, in particular 
before  proposing  the  next  multi-annual  programme.  In  return,  the  evaluation  will  increase 
transparency and further contribute to good governance, as it will provide European citizens 
and  policy-makers  with  extensive  information  on  the  implementation  and  impact  of  JLS 
policies. 

43 

COM(2007) 373 final and COM(2008) 373 final respectively . 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

STRENGTHENING FREEDOM 

3.1. 

Promotion of European Citizenship 

I. 

Objectives 

The Hague Programme and the Action Plan underlined that the rights of EU citizens to move 
and  reside  freely  in  the  Member  States  is  the  central  right  of  citizenship  of  the  Union.  Full 
implementation of the Directive 2004/38/EC, which mainly codifies legislation and case-law 
in the area of free movement, was considered in the Programme as an important element in 
order  to  ensure  that  EU  citizens  enjoy  this  right.  The  Action  Plan  also  provided  for  the 
adoption of specific measures on consular protection and European elections. 

II. 

Main developments 

The fifth report on citizenship of the Union44 shows that, on 1 January 2006, approximately 
8.2 million EU citizens were exercising their right to reside in a Member State of which they 
were not nationals.  

The Commission published a report in 200845 on the control of transposition, compliance and 
correct  application  of  Directive  2004/38/EC  on  free  movement46.  It  provides  a 
comprehensive  overview  of  how  the  directive  is  transposed  into  national  law  and  how  it  is 
applied in everyday life. The report concluded that the overall transposition of the directive is 
rather  disappointing.  Not  one  Member  State  has  transposed  the  directive  effectively  and 
correctly in its entirety and not one article of the directive has been transposed effectively and 
correctly by all Member States. No legislative amendments to the directive were proposed in 
the  report.  Consequently,  the  directive  still  needs  to  be  implemented  more  effectively  by 
Member States.  

In 2007, the Commission adopted the Action Plan 2007-2009 on consular protection of EU 
citizens in third countries47, designed to ensure the protection of EU citizens when travelling 
to countries where their Members State is not represented. It is estimated that 8.7% of the EU 
citizens travelling outside the EU travel to third countries where their Member States are not 
represented. Based on the number of trips made annually by EU citizens, it is estimated that 
the number of "unrepresented" EU nationals travelling to third countries each year is around 7 
million. It is estimated that around 2 million EU expatriates live in a third country where their 
Member State is not represented. Around 0.53% of EU citizens who travel to third countries 
need  consular  assistance,  which  would  amount  to  approximately  425,000  requests  for 

44 
45 

46 

47 

COM(2008) 85 final. 
COM(2008)  840  final.  The  third  report  COM(2006)  156  final  on  the  application  of  Directives 
90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC on free movement and residence, which were repealed by the 
Directive 2004/38, was adopted in 2006. 
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of 
citizens  of  the  Union  and  their  family  members  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the 
Member  States,  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1612/68  and  repealing  Directives  64/221/EEC, 
68/360/EEC,  72/194/EEC,  73/148/EEC,  75/34/EEC,  75/35/EEC,  90/364/EEC,  90/365/EEC  and 
93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. 
COM(2007) 767 final. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consular services by EU citizens per year in third countries. It is estimated that at least 37,000 
of these cases come from Union citizens whose Member States are not represented in the third 
country. The Eurobarometer on consular protection carried out in 2006 showed that only 23% 
of the citizens were aware of this right48. 

As regards the right to vote for the European Parliament, the Commission used the report on 
the 2004 European elections49 to present a proposal to amend the Directive laying down the 
arrangements  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  vote  and  stand  as  a  candidate  in  the  European 
elections50.  The  objective  of  the  proposal  was  to  improve  efficiency  and  to  remove  the 
burdensome  administrative  procedures,  to  prevent  multiple  voting  and  multiple  candidacies. 
This  proposal  could  not  be  adopted  on  time  for  the  2009  European  elections  because  there 
was no agreement among the Member States in the Council. 

III. 

Future challenges 

The  focus  of  the  Commission's  action  on  free  movement  and  residence  should  be  on  the 
enforcement  of  existing  legislation,  and  on  ensuring  that  Directive  2004/38/EC  is  correctly 
transposed and implemented across the EU and that EU citizens are informed of their rights. 
As  a  first  step  in  this  direction,  the  Commission  established  in  September  2008  a  group  of 
experts from Member States to discuss the application of the  Directive. The  Commission is 
also preparing interpretative guidelines on the Directive. 

In the year to come, the Commission will continue to remain active on consular protection 
should  remain  an  area  of  active  focus  in  the  years  to  come.  The  demand  for  consular 
protection will almost certainly increase in the future as EU citizens become more aware of 
their  rights  under  article  20  EC  and  as  more  people  travel  to  third  countries.  Awareness  of 
European  consular  protection  rights  need  to  be  raised  among  citizens  and  execution  of  the 
Action Plan 2007-2009 should be assessed. 

In  2007,  49%  of  European  citizens  indicated  that  they  are  "not  well  informed"  about  their 
rights,  the  less  well-known  rights  being  electoral  rights  relating  to  European  Parliament 
elections (54% aware) and municipal elections (37% aware)51.  The Parliament is working on 
a possible amendment of the Act of 1976 on the European elections52. The Commission has 
launched  a  study  on  certain  issues  concerning  the  organisation  of  European  elections.  The 
Commission will prepare an assessment on the 2009 European elections.  

48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Flash Eurobarometer 188, "Consular Protection". 
COM(2006) 790 final. 
COM(2006) 791 final. 
See footnote 48. 
Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, OJ L 
278, 8.10.1976, p. 5. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

Asylum, migration and border policy  

3.2.1 Asylum (Common European Asylum System) 

I. 

Objectives  

In  the  area  of  asylum,  the  Hague  programme  set  the  ambitious  objectives  establishing  a 
common  asylum  procedure  and  a  uniform  status  for  those  who  are  granted  asylum  or 
subsidiary protection. This should have been done through the full and inclusive application 
of the Geneva Convention on Refugees and other relevant Treaties. The Programme also set 
other  objectives,  notably  the  facilitation  of  practical  cooperation  involving  the  national 
asylum  services  of  the  Member  States,  the  full  implementation  and  evaluation  of  the  "first 
phase" instruments, the presentation of a number of studies on innovative aspects of asylum 
policy,  the  sound  use  of  existing  financial  incentives  (the  European  Refugee  Fund  in 
particular)  and  more  cooperation  with  third  countries  to  help  improve  their  capacity  to 
protecting refugees.  

II. 

Main developments 

The  first  major  achievement  in  the  area  of  asylum  was  the  adoption  of  the  asylum 
procedures directive53 in 2005. This was the only part of the "first phase" of the Common 
European  Asylum  System  (CEAS)  that  had  not  been  adopted  by  the  end  of  the  transitional 
period established in the Amsterdam Treaty (before 1 May 2004). Adoption of this directive 
entailed a shift in the decision-making process in the area of asylum: from that moment on, 
any  new  legislation  would  have  been  adopted  by  co-decision  between  the  Council  and  the 
European  Parliament  and  by  qualified  majority  voting  in  the  Council.  This  marked  an 
important advance in the construction of the CEAS. 

Given the very late adoption of the asylum procedures directive, the objective of achieving a 
common  asylum  procedure  before  2010  became  difficult  to  meet.  Member  States  needed 
time  to  transpose  the  directive  before  any  amendments  to  it  could  be  proposed.  Such 
amendments, leading to a common procedure, will be presented in 2009, which means that the 
instrument defining the common procedure could be in place by 2012.  

As far as the  establishment of a uniform status is concerned, the  situation  is similar to the 
one described above, as the deadline for transposition for the qualification directive54, which 
sets  the  statuses  of  refugees  and  persons  enjoying  subsidiary  protection,  only  expired  in 
October 2006. Amendments to the directive will also be tabled in 2009 in order to meet the 
uniform status goal.  

Practical cooperation between national asylum services has been enhanced. A Commission 
Communication in 200655 put forward ideas on how to facilitate such cooperation. Since then, 

53 

54 

55 

Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member 
States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13. 
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status 
of  third  country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who  otherwise  need 
international protection and the content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12. 
COM(2006) 67 final. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  Commission  has  financed  a  number  of  projects  on  practical  cooperation  issues,  e.g.  on 
country of origin information (COI) and on a common curriculum (training) for asylum case 
handlers. A pilot project for the establishment of a Common Portal on COI has also been set 
up.  All  these  activities  needed  structural  support,  better  coordination  and  sustained  funding, 
which  is  why  the  Commission  proposed  in  February  2009  the  establishment  of  a  European 
Asylum Support Office (EASO)56, whose tasks will cover all practical cooperation activities. 
The  creation  of  the  EASO  will  also  help  Member  States  faced  with  particular  pressures  on 
their  asylum  systems  by  coordinating  asylum  expert  teams,  and  possibly  assisting 
overburdened Member States. 

Full  evaluations  of  the  implementation  of  the  Dublin  system  (Dublin57  and  Eurodac58 
regulations) and of the Reception Conditions Directive59 were presented by the Commission 
in June60 and November61 2007 respectively. They provided the basis for the preparation of 
amendments  to  those  instruments,  which  were  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  December 
200862. The amendments to the Dublin system set out to increase the efficiency of the system 
and  to  enhance  legal  guarantees  and  protection  standards,  while  the  amendment  to  the 
Reception  Conditions  Directive  were  designed  to  ensure  better  and  more  harmonised 
reception  standards  across  the  Union,  including  the  specific  needs  of  vulnerable  persons. 
Evaluations of the implementation of two other instruments, notably of the qualification and 
procedures directives, will be presented by the end of 2009.  

The  studies  requested  by  the  Hague  programme  on  joint  processing  of  asylum  applications 
within  and  outside  the  EU  were  not  conducted  as  the  timing  was  not  considered  the  most 
appropriate. However, with a view of completing the second phase of the CEAS, this study 
will be commissioned in 2009-2010. 

As  far  as  the  financial  support  is  concerned,  the  European  Refugee  Fund  (ERF)  was 
amended  in  200763  to  align  it  with  the  three  new  funds  on  integration,  border  control  and 

56 
57 

58 

59 

60 
61 
62 

63 

COM(2009) 66 final. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003 of 18 February  2003  establishing  the  criteria  and  mechanisms 
for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the 
Member States by a third-country national, OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2725/2000  of  11  December  2000  concerning  the  establishment  of 
'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention, OJ 
L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1. 
Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of 
asylum seekers, OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18. 
COM(2007) 299 final. 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/doc_asylum_studies_en.htm.  
COM(2008) 815 final, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (Recast); COM(2008) 820 final, Proposal 
for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  criteria  and 
mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for  examining  an  application  for 
international  protection  lodged  in  one  of  the  Member  States  by  a  third-country  national  or  a  stateless 
person  (Recast);  COM(2008)  825,  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  establishing  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for 
examining  an  application  for  international  protection  lodged  in  one  of  the  Member  States  by  a  third-
country national or a stateless person (Recast). 
Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing 
the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
return.  The  amendment  also  introduced  an  increase  in  financial  support  for  practical 
cooperation  activities  and  the  possibility  of  offering  additional  financial  incentives  for  the 
resettlement of refugees in EU Member States. The resources of the ERF have been increased, 
reflecting  the  importance  of  asylum  issues,  and  have  had  an  impact  on  improving  national 
asylum  systems.  The  ERF  also  made  it  possibile  to  finance,  in  parallel  with  the  national 
programmes, actions of Community interest, and to cover the specific needs of Member States 
faced with particular asylum pressures (emergency measures). The 2007 amendment also has 
eased the conditions for triggering these emergency measures. However, it is not possible now 
to assess the overall impact of the ERF: the Commission will submit a final evaluation of the 
old ERF to the European Parliament and to the Council by the end of 2009. 

Although not envisaged by the Hague Programme, the Commission decided to launch a broad 
consultation of all stakeholders about the future of the CEAS before presenting proposals for 
the "second phase". This took the form of a Green Paper issued in June 200764 and a public 
hearing in November the same year. The results of the consultation were used to draw up the 
Policy  Plan  on  Asylum  presented  in  200865.  This  Policy  Plan  contained  the  Commission's 
ideas  about  the  form  that  the  second  phase  of  the  CEAS  should  take  and  a  roadmap  for 
proposals  to  be  submitted  in  the  coming  years.  Moreover,  it  identified  three  main  lines  of 
action  for  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  CEAS:  better  and  more  harmonised  standards  of 
protection  through  further  alignment  of  Member  States'  asylum  laws;  effective  and  well-
supported  practical  cooperation;  a  higher  degree  of  solidarity  and  responsibility  between 
Member States, and between the EU and third countries. The first concrete proposals were the 
above-mentioned  adoption  in  December  2008  of  the  amendments  to  the  Dublin  system 
(Dublin II and Eurodac Regulations) and to the Reception Conditions Directive. 

III. 

Future challenges 

While important progress in the area of asylum has been already made, work must continue in 
order to complete the CEAS by 2012 and to establish a real level playing field across the EU, 
where  all  asylum  seekers  will  be  treated  in  the  same  way,  with  the  same  high-standard 
guarantees and procedures, wherever in the EU they make their asylum claim. This will also 
help to reduce secondary movements.  

In  2008,  the  asylum  requests  introduced  in  the  EU  by  third-country  national  were  about 
240,000.  Some  Member  States  are  more  affected  then  others,  either  because  of  the  total 
number of requests received, or because of the share of requests received in relation to their 
total  population.  In  2007,  in  25%  of  first  instance  decisions  a  need  for  protection  has  been 
recognised  (refugee  status  or  subsidiary  protection).  This  average  is  the  results  of  different 
practices among Member States: some of them are more reluctant and recognize this status in 
few cases, while others grant the refugee status to about 50% of applicant. 

For this purpose,  specific challenges will need to be tackled in the years to come. First and 
foremost,  the  potential  of  the  future  EASO  should  be  tapped  to  the  maximum,  making  it  a 
useful operational support tool in the field of asylum. Furthermore, an efficient asylum system 

and  Management  of  Migration  Flows’  and  repealing  Council  Decision  2004/904/EC,  OJ  L  144, 
6.6.2007, p. 1. 
COM(2007) 301 final. 
COM(2008) 360 final. 

64 
65 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
with  high  quality  protection  standards  throughout  the  asylum  process  will  help  prevent  and 
avoid  possible  abuse.  In  this  perspective,  it  must  be  ensured  that  legitimate  measures  and 
practices  against  irregular  immigration  do  not  hamper  access  to  protection  in  the  EU  for 
asylum seekers.  

The  CEAS  should  help  to  reduce  divergent  national  practices  which  can  lead  to  significant 
differences in the recognition of protection in the Member States, causing inequalities in the 
level of protection across the EU. Moreover, it should increase solidarity and burden-sharing 
among  Member  States,  supporting  those  countries  in  particular  where  asylum  systems  are 
overburdened, notably because of their geographical location and high migratory pressures.  

The idea of harmonising other protection statuses should be also taken into account as people 
are increasingly seeking protection for reasons not envisaged in the traditional refugee regime 
(Geneva  Convention)  and  are  receiving  protection  statuses  with  lower  guarantees.  The 
protection  of  particularly  vulnerable  asylum  seekers,  especially  minors,  should  be  enhanced 
and the prospects of integration of those in need of protection in their host societies improved. 
The EU should strengthen its solidarity towards countries outside the EU in order to enhance 
their capacity to offer effective protection and lasting solutions, whilst ensuring that the Union 
is ready to assume its fair share of responsibility. 

3.2.2. Migration 

I. 

Objectives  

The  Hague  Programme  called  for  effective  management  of  migration  flows.  In  the  area  of 
immigration,  the  Programme  call  on,  the  Commission  to  present  a  Policy  Plan  on  legal 
migration66  including  admission  procedures  capable  of  responding  promptly  to  fluctuating 
demands for migrant labour. It also noted that the informal economy and illegal employment 
can  act  as  pull  factors  for  illegal  immigration  and  can  lead  to  exploitation.  Finally,  it  was 
emphasized  that  a  common  analysis  of  up-to-date  information  and  data  on  all  relevant 
migratory developments was of key importance to future policy development. 

II. 

Main developments 

In this area the main objectives have been met. More ambitious and long-term results could 
have been achieved, in particular in the area of legal migration, had there been the co-decision 
procedure in place instead of the existing unanimity rule in the Council.  

In  2005,  a  directive  setting  out  a  specific  procedure  for  the  admission  of  researchers  from 
third  countries  was  adopted67  in  a  bid  to  make  Europe  a  more  attractive,  competitive  and 
knowledge-based  economy.  The  directive  had  to  be  transposed  by  October  2007.  The 
Commission provided support to the Member States at various meetings arranged to discuss 
the interpretation of the provisions of the directive. It is too early to already assess the impacts 
of the directive. A report on the implementation of this directive will be published in 2009.  

66 
67 

COM(2005) 669 final. 
Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country 
nationals for the purposes of scientific research, OJ L 289, 3.11.2005, p. 15. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In reply to the call of the Hague programme for "admission procedures capable of responding 
promptly to fluctuating demands for migrant labour", a Policy Plan on legal migration was 
presented  in  2005  containing  a  roadmap  for  a  range  of  initiatives  that  the  Commission 
intended to take in between 2006 and 2009.  

On  the  back  of  this  Policy  Plan,  the  Commission  adopted  two  proposals  for  directives  in 
2007:  a  proposal  for  a  directive  "on  the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country 
nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment" ("Blue Card")68 and a proposal for 
a directive "on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to 
reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-
country  workers  legally  residing  in  a  Member  State"69.  The  "Blue  Card"  directive  has  been 
adopted  on  25  May  2009.  The  result  clearly  lags  behind  the  Commission's  more  ambitious 
proposal and cannot be considered as much more than a first step towards harmonisation, in 
particular regarding the (limited) possibility for "Blue Card" holders to move to and reside in 
other Member States. Two other proposals from the Policy Plan (directives on the entry and 
residence of seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees) are scheduled for adoption by 
the Commission in 2009.  

A  Communication  on  "policy  priorities  in  the  fight  against  illegal  immigration  of  third-
country  nationals"  was  presented  in  200670  and  identified  a  number  of  measures  to  fight 
illegal immigration at all stages of the illegal immigration chain, including cooperation with 
third countries, reinforcing external borders and tackling illegal employment. The proposal for 
a  directive  "providing  for  sanctions  against  employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals" of 200771 specifically addressed the pull factor of illegal immigration, in particular 
the possibility of finding illegal work. The directive has been adopted on 25 May 2009. The 
directive  on  common  standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally 
staying third-country nationals was tabled in 200572 and was formally adopted by the Council 
and the European Parliament in 200873, as the first legislative instrument in this area adopted 
under  the  co-decision  procedure.  Once  transposed,  Member  States'  return  policies  will  be 
governed  by  clear,  transparent  and  fair  common  rules  that  allow  efficient  return  procedures 
for illegally staying third-country nationals while guaranteeing them a set of rights. 

In  the  areas  of  data  collection,  analysis  and  (early)  exchange  of  information,  three 
instruments  were  adopted:  first,  the  regulation  on  Community  statistics  on  migration  and 
international  protection74  of  2007  and  second,  following  a  broad  consultation  process 
triggered  by  a  Green  Paper  in  200575,  the  Council  decision  establishing  the  European 

68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

74 

75 

COM(2007) 637 final. 
COM(2007) 638 final. 
COM(2006) 402 final. 
COM(2007) 249 final. 
COM(2005) 391 final. 
Directive  2008/115/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 December  2008  on 
common  standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  July  2007  on 
Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23. 
COM(2005) 606 final. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Migration  Network  (EMN)  of  200876.  The  EMN  is  a  crucial  element  to  meeting  the 
information  needs  of  Community  institutions  and  of  Member  States  authorities  and 
institutions  on  migration  and  asylum.  It  provides  up-to-date,  objective,  reliable  and 
comparable  information  on  migration  and  asylum  and  this  contributes  to  support  policy-
making  in  the  European  Union  in  these  areas.  Moreover,  in  2006  the  Council  adopted  a 
mutual  information  mechanism  on  national  measures  taken  in  the  areas  of  asylum  and 
immigration,  which  could  affect  other  Member  States77.  This  system  is  currently  underused 
by the Member States, unlike the secure web-based information and coordination network for 
Migration Management services (ICONet) established in 200578. 

III. 

Future challenges 

As a result  of diverse shifts in  the demographic features  of  the  EU  population, the working 
age  population  is  projected  to  decline  appreciably  in  the  coming  years  (the  loss  of  working 
age  population  is  estimated  to  be  almost  50  million  -  or  15%  -  by  2060  compared  to  2008 
figures79). Although, due to the existing economic and financial crisis, it is difficult at present 
to  forecast  the  precise  impact  this  will  have  on  the  labour  markets  and  the  employment 
situation in Europe, in the long run it is very likely to have adverse consequences on pension 
expenses,  health  spending  and  long-term  care,  the  dependency  ratio  and,  more  broadly,  the 
dynamism of the economy. Immigration can be one of the various responses to this situation. 
The  common  immigration  policy  will  have  to  be  further  developed  in  the  coming  years, 
especially with regard to possible EU rules for further categories of migrants, the recognition 
of  their  diploma  and  the  identification  of  skills  needs  in  Europe,  taking  into  account  that 
Member States have exclusive competence in determining the volume of admissions. 

Despite the important legislative framework and the measures taken at national and European 
level to combat illegal immigration, this phenomenon is still a major concern across Europe. 
The number of illegally staying persons in the EU cannot be quantified with precision. It is 
estimated  that  there  were  up  to  8  million  illegal  immigrants  within  the  EU-25  in  2006.  An 
estimated 80% were within the Schengen area. It is likely that over half of illegal immigrants 
enter the EU legally but become illegal due to overstaying their right to stay. In 2006, around 
500,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended in the EU-27 (429,000 in 2005 and 396,000 in 
2004) and it is estimated that around 40% of these were removed. In 2006, the EURODAC 
database stored 25,162 fingerprints of people who were detected crossing borders irregularly. 
Data  collected  at  national  level  indicate  that  more  than  75%  of  the  illegal  immigrants  that 
were apprehended on the territory of Member States in 2006 were from third countries where 
visas to visit  the  EU are required. It is  therefore likely that  most overstayers  originate from 
these  third  countries.  An  effective  response  to  this  phenomenon  is  therefore  needed  in  the 
future to ensure that the instruments on legal migration work properly. 

76 

77 

78 

79 

Council Decision 2008/381/EC of 14 May 2008 establishing a European Migration Network, OJ L 131, 
21.5.2008, p. 7. 
Council  Decision  2006/688/EC  of  5  October  2006  on  the  establishment  of  a  mutual  information 
mechanism  concerning  Member  States'  measures  in  the  areas  of  asylum  and  immigration,  OJ  L  283, 
14.10.2006, p. 40. 
Council  Decision  2005/267/EC  of  16  March  2005  establishing  a  secure  web-based  Information  and 
Coordination Network for Member States’ Migration Management Services, OJ L 83, 1.4.2005, p. 48. 
Eurostat, EUROPOP 2008 Convergence Scenario; Eurostat, Migration Statistics. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Communication on "A Common Immigration Policy for Europe: Principles, actions and 
tools"80 and the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum81 laid down the basic principles 
for  the  further  development  of  the  EU's  common  policy  in  the  area  of  immigration  and 
integration.  In  the  years  ahead,  therefore,  priority  must  be  given  to  implementing  existing 
measures, including monitoring application of the main legislative framework82 and revising 
it  where  necessary,  in  particular  as  regards  family  reunification83,  the  status  of  long-term 
residents  and  existing  rules  for  the  admission  of  students  and  researchers.  Moreover,  the 
works announced in the 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration must be completed by adopting 
and  implementing  the  proposed  legislative  instruments  and  setting  up  the  EU  Immigration 
Portal.  Further  common  admission  schemes  for  categories  of  immigrants  other  than  those 
identified  in  the  Policy  Plan  need  to  be  examined,  it  being  given  that  promoting  further 
channels for legal immigration should match the skills of immigrants against national labour 
market  needs.  The  fight  against  illegal  immigration  must  be  stepped  up  by  supporting  the 
practical cooperation identified in a 2007 Staff Working Document84 and the exchange of best 
practices at EU level with regard to the illegal employment of third-country nationals. 

80 
81 
82 

83 

84 

COM(2008) 359 final. 
Council document 13440/08. 
A  Communication  on  a  tracking  method  for  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  European  Pact  on 
Immigration and Asylum has been adopted on 10.6.2009. 
The  Commission  presented  a  report  on  the  application  of  the  family  reunification  Directive  2003/86 
(COM(2008)  610  final),  which  revealed  a  few  cross-cutting  issues  in  relation  to  the  transposition  or 
application of the directive, such as the provisions on visa facilitation, granting autonomous residence 
permits, taking into account the best interest of the child, legal redress and more favourable provisions 
for the family reunification of refugees. 
SEC(2007) 596. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Border management 

I. 

Objectives  

The  Hague  programme  set  the  objective  of  consolidating  the  area  without  internal  border 
controls by ensuring a high level of security at the external borders, while facilitating smooth 
and  fast  border  crossings  for  legitimate  travellers  (EU  citizens  and  third-country  nationals 
alike) and ensuring solidarity and a fair share of responsibility between Member States. 

II. 

Main developments  

Over  400  million  citizens85  in  twenty-five  countries  can  now  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the 
Schengen  passport-free  area.  Uninterrupted  travel  is  possible  from  Portugal  to  Estonia  and 
from Malta to Iceland without border checks. Lifting internal border controls needed mutual 
trust and accompanying security measures. Member States must be confident in each others' 
ability to guard effectively the external borders on behalf of the whole EU and to issue visas 
valid  for  the  whole  Schengen  area.  The  Schengen  Agreement  has  benefited  from  new 
technology  for  sharing  information  on  individuals  who  are  wanted,  missing  or  barred  from 
residence and on lost and stolen property. 

Implementation  of  the  Hague  Programme  saw  the  establishment  of  three  fundamental 
components  of  the  EU's  border  strategy:  the  consolidation  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  the 
establishment of the Frontex Agency and the launch of the External Border Fund. 

The  consolidation  of  the  relevant  parts  of  the  Schengen  acquis  on  internal  and  external 
borders  in  the  form  of  the  Schengen  Borders  Code86  is  the  first  of  the  three  fundamental 
components.  In  addition,  as  indicated  by  the  Hague  Programme,  the  local  border  traffic 
regulation was adopted in 200687. The publication of a report on the implementation of this 
regulation is expected in 2009. 

The Council decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis to 9 out 
of the 10 Member States that joined the EU in 2004 was adopted in 200788. The evaluations 
for lifting internal border controls with Bulgaria and Romania will start in 2009. 

The lifting of internal border controls required the use of the Schengen Information System 
(SIS), which was established to maintain public policy and public security, including national 

85 
86 

87 

88 

The total population of the 25 Schengen Member States is 411,310,500 (estimation: Eurostat, 2009). 
Regulation  (EC)  No 562/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15 March  2006 
establishing  a  Community  Code  on  the  rules  governing  the  movement  of  persons  across 
borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1. 
Regulation  (EC)  No 1931/2006 of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the Council  of 20 December  2006 
laying  down  rules  on  local  border  traffic  at  the  external  land  borders  of  the  Member  States  and 
amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention, OJ L 405, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
Council  Decision  2007/801/EC  of  6  December  2007  on  the  full  application  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Schengen acquis in the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic 
of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of 
Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, OJ L 323, 8.12.2007, p. 34. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
security,  on  the  basis  of  the  Schengen  Convention89.  The  second-generation  Schengen 
Information  System  (SIS  II)  was  established  in  200690  and  the  following  year  a  Council 
decision on the establishment, operation and use of the SIS II was adopted91. The aim of the 
SIS II is to ensure a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of 
the European Union, including the maintenance of public security and public policy and the 
safeguarding of security in the territories of the Member States, and to apply the provisions of 
Title  IV  of  Part  Three  of  the  EC  Treaty  relating  to  the  movement  of  persons  in  their 
territories,  using  information  communicated  via  this  system.  These  instruments  were 
complemented  by  the  regulation  on  the  access  to  the  SIS  II  by  the  services  in  the  Member 
States responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates, which was adopted in 200692. 

Currently,  the  Schengen  States  continue  to  rely  on  the  old  SIS  1+.  SIS  II  will  become 
operational once all the relevant tests have been completed, in accordance with the founding 
Council decision and regulation. Two Council Decisions93 were adopted to extend the period 
of the Commission's mandate for developing SIS II until 31 December 2008. In addition, the 
Commission  submits  a  progress  report  every  six  months  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament on the development of SIS II94. A Council regulation95 and a Council decision on 
the migration from the SIS 1+ to the SIS II96 were also adopted in 2008. Migration to SIS II 
can  take  place  only  after  completion  of  all  the  technical  steps  necessary,  including  further 
testing with the Member States. 

The legal instruments governing SIS II were completed by the adoption by the Commission of 
the SIRENE Manual and other implementing measures for the SIS II in 200897.  

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the 
States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on 
the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.09.2000, p. 19. 
Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on 
the  establishment,  operation  and  use  of  the  second  generation  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS II), 
OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 4. 
Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 205, 7.8.2007, p. 63. 
Regulation  (EC)  No 1986/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 December 2006 
regarding access to the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) by the services in the 
Member States responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates, OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 1. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1988/2006  of  21  December  2006  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2424/2001 on the development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 
411, 30.12.2006, p. 1 and Council Decision 2006/1007/JHA of 21 December 2006 amending Decision 
2001/886/JHA on the development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ 
L 411, 30.12.2006, p. 78. 
COM(2009) 133 final, Progress Report July – December 2008; COM(2008) 710 final, Progress Report 
January 2008 – June 2008; COM(2008) 239 final, Progress Report July – December 2007; SEC(2008) 
35, Progress Report January - June 2007; SEC(2007) 408, Progress Report January - December 2006. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1104/2008  of  24 October  2008  on  migration  from  the  Schengen 
Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 299, 
8.11.2008, p. 1. 
Council  Decision  2008/839/JHA  of  24 October  2008  on  migration  from  the  Schengen  Information 
System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 299, 8.11.2008, 
p. 43. 
Commission  Decision  2008/334/JHA  of  4 March  2008  adopting  the  SIRENE  Manual  and  other 
implementing  measures  for  the  second  generation  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS II),  OJ  L  123, 
8.5.2008, p. 39. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  2008,  the  Regulation  on  the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)98  and  a  Council  Decision 
concerning access for consultation of the VIS99 were adopted. Once operational, the VIS will 
allow more accurate checks at external border crossing points and within the territory of the 
Member States with the use of biometrics. It will also help to identify any person who may 
not, or may no longer, fulfil the conditions for entry to and short stay on the territory of the 
Member States. 

VIS will  start operations with biometrics from the outset. Following the political agreement 
on  the  VIS  legal  instruments,  a  new  project  schedule  has  been  drawn  up,  taking  account  of 
biometrics  and  the  finalised  legal  requirements.  In  the  latter  part  of  2008,  Member  States 
requested new guidelines on VIS, adding 6 additional months to VIS planning and postponing 
the  availability  of  the  system  for  operations  to  December  2009.  The  date  for  the  start  of 
operations will depend on the readiness of the Member States. 

Following  the  success  of  Eurodac,  the  Commission  implemented  a  Biometric  Matching 
System (BMS) to be used in VIS. The BMS was built using commonly available standards to 
enable seamless integration with other automated fingerprint identification systems.  

In accordance with the regulation and the decision on the SIS II and with the regulation on the 
VIS,  the  Commission  is  entrusted  with  the  operational  management  of  these  information 
systems  during  a  transitional  period.  In  joint  statements  accompanying  the  SIS  II  and  VIS 
legal  instruments100,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  called  on  the  Commission  to 
make  a  substantive  analysis  of  alternatives  from  a  financial,  operational  and  organisational 
perspective through an impact assessment, and to present the necessary legislative proposals 
to entrust an agency with the long-term operational management of the Central SIS II, the VIS 
and  parts  of  the  Communication  Infrastructure.  The  Commission  is  expected  to  present  in 
2009  the  legislative  proposals  to  entrust  an  agency  with  the  long-term  operational 
management  of  the Central SIS II, VIS and parts of the  Communication Infrastructure.  At a 
later stage or in parallel, the Agency could potentially be given responsibility for other large-
scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice.  

To  ensure  compliance  with  the  Schengen  acquis  in  its  entirety,  the  Hague  Programme  had 
provided  for  the  modernisation  of  the  Schengen evaluation mechanism  with  regard  to  those 
states already fully applying the Schengen acquis in full. The proposals, covering the whole 
of the Schengen acquis, were adopted by the Commission in early 2009101, and will mark the 
full integration of the Schengen acquis into the Community framework. 

98 

99 

100 
101 

Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning 
the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)  and  the  exchange  of  data  between  Member  States  on  short-stay 
visas (VIS Regulation), OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60. 
Council  Decision  2008/633/JHA  of  23 June  2008  concerning  access  for  consultation  of  the  Visa 
Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes 
of  the  prevention,  detection  and  investigation  of  terrorist  offences  and  of  other  serious  criminal 
offences, OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 129. 
Joint statement 235/06 on the long-term management of SIS II and VIS. 
COM(2009)  102  final,  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  the  establishment  of  an  evaluation 
mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and COM(2009) 105 final, Proposal for a 
Council  Decision  on  the  establishment  of  an  evaluation  mechanism  to  monitor  the  application  of  the 
Schengen acquis. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  second  fundamental  component  of  the  border  management  policy  consisted  of 
establishing  the  Frontex  Agency  for  the  coordination  of  operational  cooperation  between 
Member States102. Four years after its establishment, the Agency is fully operational and the 
reasons for setting it up are still perfectly valid, as the 2008 evaluation showed103. The 2009 
external evaluation of FRONTEX104 confirms the positive results achieved by the Agency in 
respect  of  the  main  objectives  set  in  the  founding  regulation.  The  regulation  setting  up  the 
Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT) and extending the powers of guest officers taking 
part in joint Frontex operations was adopted in 2007105. While the preparatory measures for 
setting up the teams and a number of exercises have been completed, no Member State has as 
of yet requested the deployment of such teams. 

Cooperation  between  the  Member  States  has  dramatically  grown  since  the  establishment  of 
the  Frontex  Agency.  As  just  one  example,  the  total  number  of  days  of  joint  operations  has 
gone  up  from  613  in  2007  to  1,922  in  2008.  In  2006  and  2007,  Frontex  conducted  33  joint 
operations  and  10  pilot  projects,  with  a  further  28  operations  and  projects  in  2008.  The 
duration of these operations is limited, some lasting a week, others several months. Because 
they  were  short-term,  operations  conducted  in  high  risk  areas  in  2006  and  2007  were  not 
sufficient to ensure effective border control and surveillance, due largely to the lack of human 
and  financial  resources.  As  a  result,  joint  operations  need  to  be  more  permanent  in  nature 
(throughout the year) in specific high-risk areas. Moreover, participation with equipment such 
as vessels and aircrafts is limited, with only 2-3 Member States providing such equipment for 
individual  operations.  The  example  of  the  "Hera"  operation,  off  the  Canary  Islands, 
demonstrates that the efficiency of Frontex operations is greatly enhanced if combined with 
proactive  cooperation  with  third  countries106,  and  that  further  efforts  are  needed  in  this 
domain with regard to other exposed regions at the southern maritime borders.  

The Frontex regulation stipulates that the Agency "shall provide the necessary assistance for 
organising joint return operations of Member States". The Agency has provided this kind of 
assistance  on  28  occasions  over  the  past  two  years  (2007-2008),  involving  a  total  of  1,229 
returnees.  These  low  figures  illustrate  that  there  is  a  lack  of  return  operations  involving  the 
Agency  and  that  most  of  the  return  operations  are  organised  by  the  Member  States  on  a 

102 

103 
104 

105 

106 

the  Member  States  of 

the  External  Borders  of 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  of  26  October  2004  establishing  a  European  Agency  for  the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European 
Union, OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1. 
COM(2008) 67 final. 
Frontex, "External evaluation of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation 
at 
the  European  Union",  available  at: 
http://www.frontex.europa.eu/download/Z2Z4L2Zyb250ZXgvZW4vZGVmYXVsdF9vcGlzeS82Mi8x
LzE/cowi_report_final.doc. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  863/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 July  2007 
establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams and amending Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 as regards that mechanism and regulating the tasks and powers of guest 
officers, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 30. 
18  working  arrangements  have  been  concluded  with  Third  Countries  and  International  Bodies 
(Switzerland, Croatia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, UHNCR, IOM, Europol, FYROM, Albania, 
Serbia,  CEPOL,  Bosnia-Herzegovina,  the  United  States,  Interpol,  ICMPD  and  Montenegro),, 
negotiations with Cape Verde and Turkey are ongoing and in 6 cases a mandate for negotiating working 
arrangements has been given but negotiations have not started yet (Senegal, Mauritania, Libya, Egypt, 
Brazil and Belarus). 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
bilateral  basis  with  third  countries,  or  in  a  joint  effort  undertaken  by  a  group  of  Member 
States. In those cases Frontex was not involved in those cases.  

It should be stressed in this context that management of the Union's southern external border 
has taken on a much greater priority than anticipated at the time of the launch of the Hague 
Programme,  due  to  increasing  migratory  pressure,  using  mainly  unseaworthy  means  and 
putting  migrants'  lives  at  risk.  The  Commission  responded  with  a  series  of  measures,  in 
particular to reinforce Frontex. Its budget dramatically rose and is already beyond the initial 
forecasts of the financial perspectives. For example, the 2008 budget was € 70 million, which 
is as high as the 2013 budget initially foreseen for the Agency. 

Migratory  pressure  is  expected  to  continue,  especially  at  the  southern  borders,  although 
attention should be paid to displacement effects. The tragic side of these flows, with a number 
of persons drowning at sea before even being detected and rescued, must be further addressed: 
this is primarily a humanitarian issue, and only secondly a border surveillance issue. 

The Commission also issued a study on the international law instruments in relation to illegal 
immigration  by  sea107.  The  study  analyses  the  current  legal  framework  for  the  exercise  of 
control and surveillance powers at the maritime external border, as well as the main obstacles 
to  the  effective  exercise  of  that  surveillance,  and  suggests  solutions  that  could  involve,  if 
necessary,  the  adoption  of  instruments  amending  or  complementing  the  existing  legal 
framework. 

The  third  fundamental  component  of  the  border  management  policy  consisted  of  launching 
the  External  Borders  Fund108,  this  policy  area  being  supported  with  substantial  financial 
means and giving a real meaning to the principles of solidarity and burden-sharing between 
Member  States.  It  supports  Member  States  with  specific  requirements  regarding  checks  and 
surveillance of long or difficult stretches of external borders, or with special and unforeseen 
circumstances  due  to  exceptional  migratory  pressures  at  their  external  borders.  The  annual 
resources  available  under  the  fund  will  rise from  €  170  million  in  2007  to  €  481  million  in 
2013,  making  a  total  amount  of  €  1. 82  billions.  Since  it  was  only  launch  recently,  it  is  too 
early to assess the actual impact of this programme. An intermediate evaluation of the fund is 
planned in 2010.  

III. 

Future challenges 

Quantifying the situation with regard to external and internal borders is by its nature difficult. 
Passenger flows within the Union cannot be estimated due to the very fact that border controls 
have  been  abolished.  However,  its  symbolic  importance  in  unifying  Europe  cannot  be 
underestimated, as witnessed by the Schengen enlargement to nine of the new Member States 
that joined in 2004.  

At the external borders, passenger flows are influenced largely by economic factors: business 
trips and tourism generally increase or decrease depending on the overall economic situation 

107 
108 

SEC(2007) 691. 
Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing 
the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity and 
Management of Migration Flows, OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 22. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
worldwide. No systematic collection of data is carried out by Member States, but an estimated 
total  of  close  to  900  million  external  border  crossings  took  place  in  2006.  However,  the 
experience  of  the  United  States  appears  to  indicate  that  overly  cumbersome  procedures  for 
obtaining visas and for crossing the borders can stifle people flows and the EU will need to 
pay further attention to this issue in the future. 

Flows have been growing in the recent years and are likely to increase. Taking into account 
the forecasts for international travel and how it is likely to develop in the medium term, the 
current infrastructure at border crossing points will have to be adapted to the growing number 
of  travellers,  which  can  only  be  dealt  with  through  new  systems  and  procedures  or  through 
considerable investment in physical infrastructure and human resources. The largest number 
of  crossings  of  external  border  occurs  at  airports.  Land  border  crossing  points  are  the  next 
most frequently used type of border crossing. 

In 2008 the Commission presented a "border package" consisting of three communications on 
Frontex109, on the establishment of a European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur)110 and 
on next steps in border management, including an entry/exit system and a registered traveller's 
programme111. The Council welcomed the package in its conclusions of 5-6 June 2008112. The 
first priority in the future will therefore be to ensure the follow-up to this package.  

The  main  objective  will  remain  to  consolidate  the  area  without  internal  border  controls,  by 
ensuring  a  high  level  of  security  at  the  external  borders,  while  facilitating  smooth  and  fast 
border crossings for legitimate travellers (EU citizens and third-country nationals alike) and 
guaranteeing solidarity and a fair share of responsibility between Member States. These new 
systems must at the same time also guarantee more security for citizens and a high level of 
protection  of  privacy.  Technological  developments  and  FRONTEX  can  provide  extremely 
constructive support. 

The steadily increasing role of technology and the gradual establishment of new IT tools may 
call  for  a  more  in-depth  look  at  whether  the  EU  should  equip  itself  with  an  overarching  e-
borders  strategy  to  provide  a  framework  at  European  level  for  further  developments  and  to 
promote  interoperability  and  cost-efficiency.  Making  full  use  of  all  IT  resources  available, 
better coordination between the various European systems and ensuring the compatibility of 
national systems should be priorities for the future. In the longer run, how to coordinate and 
enhance  more  effectively  the  activities  of  the  different  authorities  at  the  borders  (especially 
customs and border control) should be considered.  

109 
110 
111 
112 

See footnote 129. 
COM(2008) 68 final. 
COM(2008) 69 final. 
Council document 9956/08, p. 34, adopting Council document 9873/08. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.4. 

 Integration of third-country nationals 

I. 

Objectives 

In the area of integration of third-country nationals, the Hague Programme called for the 
establishment of a coherent European framework for integration, based on common principles 
that should form the foundation for future initiatives in the EU. It also underlined the need for 
greater  coordination  and  exchange  of  experiences  on  national  integration  policies,  and  EU 
initiatives that should also be supported by an openly accessible website.  

II. 

Main developments 

A set of Common Basic Principles (CBPs) were adopted by the Council in November 2004113 
to  underpin  a  coherent  European  framework  for  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals. 
These should help Member States to formulate integration policies by offering them a guide 
against which they can judge and assess their own efforts. 

The  2005  Communication  "A  Common  Agenda  for  Integration  –  Framework  for  the 
Integration  of  Third-Country  Nationals  in  the  European  Union"114  provided  a  coherent 
common EU framework for integration. It contained proposals for  concrete measures to put 
the CBPs into practice, together with a series of EU support mechanisms, such as a network 
of National Contact Points; a Handbook on Integration for Policy-Makers and Practitioners; 
an Integration website, which has been set up to maintain an inventory of good practices; a 
European  Integration  Forum;  and  Annual  Reports  on  Immigration  and  Integration.  The 
Council  approved  this  proposed  framework  and  agenda  in  December  2005115,  which  have 
since  formed  the  generally  recognised  framework  for  further  activities  in  the  area  of 
integration at EU level.  

The European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals was established in 2007116. € 
825  million  is  allocated  for  the  period  2007-2013.  The  purpose  of  the  fund  is  to  support 
integration policies and measures in the Member States. It is too early to assess the impact of 
this fund; an intermediate evaluation is planned in 2010. 

Work  on  an  EU  Integration  Forum  and  on  an  EU  website  on  integration  (EWSI)  started  in 
2006.  They  were  both  completed  in  April  2009,  when  the  first  official  meeting  of  the  EU 
Integration Forum was held and the EWSI went on-line and became publically accessible117. 
In  2006118  and  2007119  two  annual  reports  on  integration  were  adopted  and  two  Ministerial 
Conferences  on  Integration  took  place  (Potsdam  in  2007  and  Vichy  in  2008).  Finally,  two 

113 
114 
115 
116 

117 
118 
119 

Council document 14615/04, p. 15. 
COM(2005) 389 final. 
Council document 14390/05, p. 36. 
Council Decision 2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of 
third-country  nationals  for  the  period  2007  to  2013  as  part  of  the  General  programme  Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows, OJ L 168, 28.6.2007, p. 18. 
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/. 
SEC(2006) 892. 
COM(2007) 512 final. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
editions of the "Integration handbook for policy-makers and practitioners" were published in 
2004 and 2007120 and the third edition will be presented in 2009. 

III. 

Future challenges 

The  Communication  on  Common  Immigration  Policy  for  Europe,  the  European  Pact  on 
Immigration  and  Asylum  and  the  Declaration  of  the  Vichy  Ministerial  Conference  of 
November  2008  (which  were  subsequently  endorsed  by 
the  Council  as  Council 
conclusions121) laid down the basic principles and guidelines for the further development of 
the EU's common policy in the area of immigration and integration. 

In  2007,  18.8  million  third-country  nationals  were  resident  in  the  EU27,  3.8%  of  the  total 
population122. Although a growing number of Member States recognise the vital importance 
of  integration  policies,  which  fall  within  their  competence,  and  despite  the  increasing 
supporting role played by the EU, many integration challenges remain. 

Mainstreaming integration has become an integral part of policy-making and implementation 
across  a  wide  range  of  EU  policies.  However,  effective  sharing  of  information  and 
coordinating  with  all  tiers  of  authorities  and  stakeholders  are  still  major  challenges. 
Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  integration  policies  and  programmes  and  identification  of 
specific indicators have so far not been sufficient. 

The integration of immigrants into the labour market is still a major challenge. The average 
educational attainment of non-nationals is generally substantially lower than that of nationals. 
In addition, improving immigrants' knowledge of the host society and of its language remains 
a major challenge.  

More should be done to ensure that all residents, including immigrants, understand, respect, 
benefit  from  and  are  protected  on  an  equal  basis  by  the  full  range  of  values,  rights, 
responsibilities  and  privileges  established  by  the  EU  and  Member  States'  laws.  Future 
challenges  therefore  also  include  issues  measures  targeting  the  host  society,  prevention  of 
alienation,  developing  common  modules  for  the  integration  process  and,  above  all,  a 
systematic assessment of national integration policies. 

All this argues in favour of continuing work on the implementation and development of the 
Common  Agenda  for  Integration,  namely  by  consolidating  the  mainstreaming  approach  and 
establishing measures to provide further incentives and support for Member States' action to 
promote integration. 

Available at:  

120 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration/doc_immigration_integration_en.htm. 
121 
122 

Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 19, adopting Council document 15251/08. 
See footnote 102. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.5. 

Visa policy 

I. 

Objectives  

The  common  visa  policy  is  an  essential  flanking  measure  which  is  needed  to  maintain  the 
integrity of an area without internal border controls and ensure a high level of security at the 
external borders while facilitating legitimate travel and tackling illegal immigration of third-
country nationals required to hold a visa for short stays within the Schengen area. A coherent 
EU  approach  and  harmonised  solutions  based  on  biometric  identifiers  were  considered 
necessary to achieve this objective. 

II. 

Main developments  

Fundamental  components  of  the  EU's  common  visa  policy  were  established  in  the  period 
2004-2009 . As previously mentioned, the legislative framework for the implementation and 
operation  of  the  VIS  was  adopted  in  2008123.  As  a  system  for  the  exchange  of  visa  data 
between Member States, the VIS will support the implementation of the common visa policy 
and, for example, facilitate checks at external border crossing points. 

As  regards  the  widespread  use  of  biometric  identifiers,  the  Council  has  adopted  the 
introduction  of  facial  image  and  two  fingerprints  in  residence  permits  for  third  country 
nationals124  and  in  Member  States'  passports  and  other  travel  documents  (except  identity 
cards)  with  a  validity  of  more  than  12  months125.  Regarding  the  latter,  in  2007  the 
Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  amending  the  regulation  with  the  purpose  of  updating 
standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by EU 
Member States and harmonising exceptions to the general obligation to provide fingerprints 
for the travel documents issued by the Member States (will be exempt from the requirement to 
give fingerprints persons who are physically unable to give fingerprints and, on a provisional 
basis,  children  under  the  age  of  12  years)126.  The  amendment  to  the  regulation  has  been 
approved by the Council in 2009127. 

In  2006,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  to  create  the  legal  basis  for  Member  States  to 
take  mandatory  biometric  identifiers  (the  facial  image  and  ten  flat  fingerprints)  from  visa 
applicants and to provide a legal framework for Member States' consular offices to implement 
the VIS128. In addition to the existing form of representation, the proposal aimed to create new 
forms of consular offices: limited representation, co-location and common application centres. 
Moreover, it provided for a legal framework for outsourcing the receipt of visa applications to 
external service providers. Political agreement on this proposal has been reached and formal 
adoption is expected in 2009. 

123 
124 

125 

126 
127 
128 

See footnotes 123-124. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 380/2008  of  18  April  2008  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No 1030/2002 
laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals, OJ L 115, 29.4.2008, p. 
1.  
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2252/2004  of  13  December  2004  on  standards  for  security  features  and 
biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, OJ L 385, 29.12.2004, p. 1. 
COM(2007) 619 final. 
Not yet published on the OJ. 
COM(2006) 269 final. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Common  Consular  Instructions  were  recast  and  incorporated  together  with  all  legal 
instruments governing the conditions and procedures for issuing visas into the proposed Code 
on  visas129,  thereby  enhancing  transparency  and  clarifying  existing  rules,  introducing 
measures intended to increase the harmonisation of procedures, and increasing legal certainty 
and procedural guarantees. 

The Commission has negotiated visa facilitation agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, 
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and 
Montenegro. These agreements provide for simplification of the visa procedures for citizens 
of  these  countries  wishing  to  travel  to  the  EU  for  short  stays.  The  agreements  entered  into 
force in June 2007 with Russia and in January 2008 with all the other countries. 

The "visa reciprocity"  reports published by  the Commission130 take stock of the approaches 
made to ensure that the citizens of all Member States can travel without a short-stay visa to all 
third countries whose nationals can travel to the EU without a visa. Full visa reciprocity has 
been achieved with Costa Rica, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, 
Paraguay,  Singapore,  Uruguay  and  Venezuela.  Major  progress  has  also  been  achieved  with 
Australia,  Brunei,  Canada  and  the  United  States.  However,  no  progress  has  been  achieved 
with Japan in relation to the visa requirement for Romanian citizens. Negotiations on a visa 
waiver agreement are ongoing with Brazil. 

One  of  the  outstanding  measures  envisaged  by  the  Hague  programme  was  the  proposal  to 
create  common  visa  application  centres,  presented  in  2006131.  The  new  arrangements  on 
consular  cooperation  on  common  application  centres,  which  is  expected  to  be  adopted  in 
2009,  could  be  a  first  step  towards  an  enhanced  common  visa  policy  with  common  visa 
offices, without prejudice to the future European External Action Service. Without awaiting 
the adoption of this new legislation, two common application centres have already been set up 
as  pilot  projects  (one  by  Hungary  in  Moldova  and  one  by  Slovenia  in  Montenegro).  Others 
centres will be financed as Community projects under the External Border Fund. 

Some of these measures will only be implemented towards the end of 2009, including the start 
of operations of the VIS (the gradual regional "roll-out" will take at least two years, before all 
the consulates of the Member States are connected to this new system), the Visa Code and the 
Instructions on the practical application of the Code.  

III. 

Future challenges 

The  lists  of  third  countries  under  the  visa  obligation  and  those  exempted  from  that 
requirement should be regularly revised in the light  of  the  assessment  of  the  risks  of  illegal 
immigration, internal security and the results of the ongoing visa dialogues with certain third 
countries. 

The  VIS  will  need  to  be  put  into  effect,  as  will  the  new  arrangements  provided  by  the 
regulation  amending  the  Common  Consular  Instructions  concerning  biometrics  in  the  visa-

129 
130 

131 

COM(2006) 403 final. 
Four  "reciprocity  reports"  have  been  published:  COM(2006)  3  final;  COM(2006)  568  final; 
COM(2007) 533 final; COM(2008) 486 final/2. 
See footnote 155. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
issuing  procedure,  consular  organisation  and  cooperation  and  the  Visa  Code.  A  common 
curriculum  for  the  training  of  consular  staff  on  the  rules  and  procedures  for  issuing  visas 
could be considered. 

The external aspects of the common visa policy should also be further developed through the 
conclusion, where appropriate, of new agreements on visa facilitation and on the exemption 
from visa obligation. Additionally, efforts should be made to promote initiatives designed to 
create common application centres or to encourage Member States to conclude representation 
arrangements. 

In  the  long  term,  the  implementation  of  the  enhanced  harmonisation  provided  by  the  Visa 
Code and the development of the different forms of consular cooperation should be assessed, 
with a view to developing a system for European short-stay visas  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
3.6. 

External dimension of asylum and migration  

I. 

Objectives 

The Hague Programme objectives regarding the external dimension of asylum and migration 
focused on establishing partnerships with third countries. The EU policy sets out to help third 
countries in full partnership using existing Community funds, in their efforts to improve their 
capacity  for  migration  management  and  refugee  protection;  to  prevent  and  combat  illegal 
immigration;  to  provide  information  on  legal  channels  for  migration;  to  resolve  refugee 
situations through durable solutions; to enhance the capacities of third countries to build their 
asylum systems; to build border-control capacity; to enhance document security; and to tackle 
return and readmission.  

The Programme also called on the EU to continue the process of fully integrating migration 
into the EU's existing and future relations with third countries, intensifying cooperation and 
capacity  building  with  third  countries  at  the  southern  and  eastern  borders  of  the  EU,  and 
developing  policies  that  link  migration  and  development  cooperation,  including  the 
integration  of  migration  into  the  Country  and  Regional  Strategy  Papers  of  all  relevant  third 
countries.  

II. 

Main developments 

Achieving the objectives in the external dimension of asylum and migration has been mainly 
carried  out  through  the  Global  Approach  to  Migration,  which  was  adopted  in  2005132  to 
establish an inter-sector framework to manage migration coherently through political dialogue 
and close practical cooperation with third countries. 

Cooperation  with  third  countries  in  the  area  of  asylum  was  boosted  by  the  progressive 
implementation  of  Regional  Protection  Programmes  (RPPs),  first  proposed  by 
the 
Commission  in  a  Communication  in  2005133.  Two  pilot  RPPs  were  set  up  in  two  regions: 
Tanzania (as  part of the Great Lakes region in  Africa)  and  the  Western  Newly  Independent 
States (Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus). In parallel, the Commission and the Member States 
have been working towards the creation of a joint EU voluntary resettlement scheme with the 
aim to ensure access to protection in Europe especially for vulnerable cases, and to enhance 
the impact of RPP in the regions. The first tangible result of this was the commitment by the 
Council in December 2008 to resettle in the EU about 10,000 Iraqi refugees from Jordan and 
Syria134. Concrete proposals on a joint resettlement scheme will be made by the Commission 
in July 2009. The pilot  RPPs  are  currently being evaluated and the results will  be available 
before  summer  2009.  In  the  light  of  the  pilot  experience,  the  Commission  will  consider 
expanding RPPs to other regions. 

132 

133 
134 

Council  document  15914/1/05  rev  1,  Presidency  Conclusions  of  the  15-16  December  2005  Brussels 
European Council.  
COM(2005) 388 final. 
Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 23. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the period 2005-2008, the Global Approach was the subject of four specific Commission 
Communications135 and it was also covered by several specific and thematic communications. 

The  Global  Approach  to  migration  was  gradually  integrated  into  the  EU's  external  policies 
with  the  aim  to  address  migration  and  asylum  issues  in  a  comprehensive  and  balanced 
manner. The European Union gradually developed and defined the Global Approach, which 
was both thematic and geographical in scope and incorporated a number of innovative tools.  

Initially applying the concept of "migratory routes", the Global Approach first focused on the 
South, and particularly on Sub-Saharan Africa. New forms of dialogue and cooperation were 
established,  both  at  ministerial  and  practitioners  level,  which  had  hardly  existed  before. 
Migration was included in the political dialogue and cooperation with third countries, such as 
the  Rabat  Process,  the  EU-Africa  Partnership  on  Migration,  Mobility  and  Employment, 
Euromed  and  Regional  and  Country  Strategy  Papers.  In  2007,  the  Global  Approach  was 
extended  to  the  Eastern  and  South-eastern  regions  neighbouring  the  European  Union,  with 
consideration  to  certain  Middle  Eastern  and  Asian  countries  of  origin  along  the  migratory 
routes. Achievements in these regions were less visible since the Global Approach priorities 
for  these  regions  were  in  line  with  already  established  cooperation  frameworks,  such  as  the 
European Neighbourhood policy, the pre-accession strategy and the enlargement process. The 
Global  Approach  to  migration  also  inspired  the  EU/Latin  American-Caribbean  dialogue  on 
migration called for by the Lima Summit in May 2008. 

Thematically,  the  Global  Approach  has  three  key  priorities:  managing  legal  migration  more 
effectively, preventing and reducing illegal migration, and promoting the positive and curbing 
the negative aspects of the relation between migration and development. 

In terms of migration and development, much has been done to encourage a positive impact 
on development from the transfers of migrants' remittances: reducing transfer costs, engaging 
diaspora members in development, sharing information on legal migration opportunities and 
exploring  circular  migration,  facilitating  migration  observatories  and  reducing  the  negative 
effects of the brain drain, in particular regarding healthcare professionals.  

As  regards  labour  migration  and  mobility,  the  EU  has  supported  third  countries'  efforts  to 
better manage legal migration. This has taken the form of strengthening the capacities of the 
national  services  or  of  autonomous  centres  responsible  for  informing  and  counselling 
potential  migrants  and/or  their  nationals  abroad  and  exploring  ways  of  developing  labour-
matching  mechanisms  and  circular  migration  schemes.  Much  has  also  been  achieved  in  the 
fight against illegal immigration through assistance for strengthening border management in 
third  countries,  enhancing  capacity  building  for  border  guards  and  migration  officials, 
developing the use of biometric technologies and making travel and identity documents more 
secure, informing on the risks related to irregular migration, supporting the improvement of 
reception conditions, fighting against trafficking and smuggling of human beings, and setting 
up  an  Immigration  Liaison  Officers  Networks.  Progress  in  this  regard  is  described  in  three 
annual reports on a common policy on illegal immigration136. As called for by the Council, a 
Commission Special Representative for a common readmission policy was appointed in 2005. 

135 
136 

COM(2005) 621 final, COM(2006) 735 final, COM(2007) 247 final/2 and COM(2008) 611 final. 
SEC(2004) 1349, SEC(2006) 1010 and SEC(2009) 320. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Since  2004,  11  readmission  agreements  have  been  concluded  and  have  entered  into  force: 
Hong  Kong,  Macao,  Sri  Lanka,  Albania,  Russian  Federation,  Montenegro,  the  former 
Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Ukraine  and  Moldova. 
Negotiations  with  Pakistan  were  successfully  completed  in  September  2008  and  the 
agreement is in the process of ratification by both sides. The negotiations with Morocco and 
Turkey are still ongoing while the negotiations with China and Algeria have not been initiated 
yet  due  to  the  refusal  to  engage  from  those  two  countries.  The  Commission  also  presented 
recommendations  to  the  Council  for  obtaining  negotiating  guidelines  for  readmission 
agreements with Cape Verde. 

The tools of the Global Approach to migration have also been developed. These tools include 
migration  missions,  mobility  partnerships,  cooperation  platforms,  circular  migration  and 
migration profiles. While the tools still need to be further developed and made broadly known 
among  partners  and  stakeholders,  they  translate  into  a  promising  overall  framework  for 
external  migration  cooperation.  In  addition,  a  more  innovative  approach  to  readmission 
agreements,  linking  them  to  these  tools  and  to  clear  political  leverage  that  can  be  obtained 
with a more flexible visa policy, could further increase the rate of success. 

The  most  promising  tool  –  mobility  partnerships  –  brings  all  migration  and  asylum-related 
issues  together  in  a  package  deal  with  third  country  partners,  in  which  Member  States  can 
participate  on  a  voluntary  basis.  This  mechanism  is  still  in  an  early  exploratory  phase,  and 
will need to be further tested. Pilot mobility partnerships were agreed in June 2008 between 
Moldova  and  15  Member  States  and  between  Cape  Verde  and  5  Member  States;  the 
Commission  has  subsequently  been  requested,  together  with  the  Council  Presidency  and 
interested Member States, to take exploratory talks forward with Senegal and Georgia.  

Cooperation  with  third  countries  has  been  facilitated  by  a  number  of  EU  financial 
instruments. More than 100 projects were co-funded under the AENEAS programme and 54 
new ones are now funded under the Thematic Programme of cooperation with third countries 
in  the  areas  of  migration  and  asylum.  In  addition,  the  "solidarity  and  management  of 
migration  flows"  financial  programme  also  addresses  issues  relating  to  return  and 
readmission. 

Other funds were provided through the geographic instruments, such as the MEDA, CARDS 
and the TACIS programmes, now replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership 
Instrument (ENPI), the European Development Fund (EDF) for Africa, the Caribbean and the 
Pacific  region  and  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI)  for  South  Africa,  the 
Middle east and Asian countries not covered by the ENPI, and Latin America.  

Mobilisation  of  the  various  sources  of  funding  was  of  key  importance  to  achieving  the 
objectives set by the Hague programme. There is thus a need to consider how best to combine 
in  future  these  various  resources  in  future  (including  funding  from  EU  Member  State  and 
other outside sources). 

III. 

Future challenges 

Overall, the various instruments and tools of the Global Approach to Migration will need to 
be  further  consolidated  as  part  of  a  comprehensive  and  balanced  political  and  institutional 
framework  of  dialogue  and  cooperation.  One  of  the  main  institutional  challenges  will  be  to 
integrate migration more deeply into the overall external relations of the European Union and 
the  Member  States.  Another  important  challenge  is  to  enhance  the  methods  through  which 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
development cooperation funding are used for migration-related initiatives, in particular with 
regard to their compliance with DAC/ODA criteria. Migration will also need to be integrated 
in  a  sustainable  and  coherent  manner  into  other  policy  areas,  such  as  trade,  agriculture, 
employment,  research and  education  and  continue to  be  further integrated into development 
policy. 

The Commission, the Member States and third-country governments should further enhance 
their  capacity  to  implement  the  large  number  and  diverse  range  of  migration  cooperation 
initiatives.  Close  coordination  and  synergies  are  crucial  in  order  to  ensure  complementarity 
and avoid duplication of work.  

New  issues  and  challenges  need  to  be  tackled  systematically.  These  include  the  long-term 
changes  in  the  relationships  between  the  European  Union  and  other  world  regions  that  may 
affect  migration  and  mobility,  the  effects  if  global  population  ageing  and  demographic 
challenges,  global  labour  market  dynamics  and  the  changing  power  balances  through 
emerging  markets  and  new  major  players,  recurrent  political  and  economic  crises,  climate 
change and migration. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
4. 

STRENGTHENING SECURITY 

4.1. 

Improving the exchange of information 

I. 

Objectives 

The Hague Programme underlined the importance of strengthening security as part of a major 
general  programme  to  set  up  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice.  To  this  end,  the 
programme  called  for  an  innovative  approach  to  the  cross-border  exchange  of  law 
enforcement information. It identified the "principle of availability" as the guiding principle to 
achieve this goal, while fully protecting fundamental rights, such as the right to protection of 
personal data. In particular, the Programme set out a number of specific actions including the 
retention  of  electronic  communications  data,  simplifying  the  exchange  of  information  and 
criminal  intelligence  between  law  enforcement  authorities  of  the  Member  States,  and 
exchange of information in specific areas such as DNA and fingerprints. The Action Plan also 
identified  the  exchange  of  Passenger  Name  Record  (PNR)  data  as  a  specific  means  of 
strengthening security.  

II. 

Main developments 

The information-sharing priorities identified in the Hague Programme led to the adoption of a 
number  of  legislative  instruments  and  international  agreements,  of  which  the  main  ones  are 
listed below. 

Principle of availability 

The "principle of availability" implies that a law enforcement officer from one Member State 
can obtain information in the course of his duties from another Member State, and that a law 
enforcement  agency  in  another  Member  State  will  make  that  information  available  for  the 
stated purpose. 

In 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Framework Decision on the exchange of 
information  under  the  "principle  of  availability"137.  It  laid  down  an  approach  whereby 
information,  wherever  available  in  the  EU,  can  be  obtained  by  law  enforcement  officials  to 
exercise their tasks under the same conditions as their peers in the Member State that controls 
the  information.  However,  the  proposal  was  never  adopted  by  the  Council,  as  it  coincided 
with the Prüm Treaty, which establishes meaningful (albeit less wide) forms of online access 
to  data,  and  in  particular  the  intention  of  its  signatories  to  bring  this  Treaty  within  the 
framework of the EU. 

Exchange of information in specific areas (Prüm package) 

137 

COM(2005) 490 final. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Hence,  the  Commission  supported  the  initiative  of  Germany138  and  other  signatories  of  the 
Prüm Treaty to transform the Treaty into a Council decision, which was adopted in 2008139 
after political agreement was reached in a record time within the Council in June 2007.  

The Prüm Decision established the possibility for law enforcement authorities to gain direct 
access on a "hit/no-hit" basis to decentralised DNA and fingerprint databases, enabling them 
to find out whether DNA or fingerprint records exist, and to have full online access to vehicle 
registration  databases.  The  Prüm  Decision  is  a  general  framework  that  needs  to  be 
implemented  by  further  measures,  as  laid  down  in  the  accompanying  implementing 
decision140.  In  addition,  the  Commission  carried  out  preparatory  work  and  analysis  on  the 
establishment of an EU Criminal Automated Fingerprint Identification System (CAFIS). This 
kind  of  system  could  support  and  add  to  the  Prüm  approach,  in  particular  with  a  view  to 
expanding  the  exchange  of  fingerprint  data  to  all  27  Member  States,  where  a  centralised 
system would be more effective and simpler to use. Europol has set up a pilot project with 4 
to 5 Member States to demonstrate the validity of the concept. 

Simplifying the exchange of information and criminal intelligence (Swedish Initiative) 

The  above-mentioned  proposal  for  a  Framework  Decision  on  the  implementation  of  the 
"principle  of  availability"  was  drafted  against  the  background  of  a  legislative  initiative  that 
Sweden  presented  in  2004  to  simplify  the  exchange  of  information  and  intelligence141. This 
so-called  "Swedish  initiative"  was  adopted  by  the  Council  in  2006142  and  had  to  be 
implemented  by  19  December  2008.  This  instrument  replaces  the  information  exchange  on 
the basis of articles 39 and 46 of the Schengen Convention, introduces an obligation to answer 
a request for information even if there is no information to be provided, and makes it possible 
to streamline procedures that require intervention by judicial authorities.  

Because the Prüm package and the "Swedish initiative" were only recently adopted, it is too 
early yet to assess the impact on the exchange of information between Member States under 
the "principle of availability". The "Swedish initiative" is in the process of being implemented 
and its impact on enhancing information exchange between Member States can only be fully 
assessed in the years to come.  

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

Initiative  of  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany  with  a  view  to  the  adoption  of  a  Council 
Decision 2007/…/JHA  of  …  on  the  implementation  of  Decision  2007/…/JHA  on  the  stepping  up  of 
cross-border  cooperation,  particularly  in  combating  terrorism  and  cross-border  crime,  OJ  C  267, 
9.11.2007, p. 4.  
Council  Decision  2008/615/JHA  on  the  stepping  up  of  cross-border  cooperation,  particularly  in 
combating terrorism and cross-border crime, OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1. 
Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up 
of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border, OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, 
p. 12. 
Initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Framework Decision on simplifying the 
exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of 
the  European  Union,  in  particular  as  regards  serious  offences  including  terrorist  acts,  OJ  C  281, 
18.11.2004, p. 5. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2006/960/JHA  of  18  December  2006  on  simplifying  the  exchange  of 
information  and  intelligence  between  law  enforcement  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  the 
European Union, OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 89. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As a result of the Prüm Decision and the "Swedish initiative", the Council revived the ad-hoc 
group  on  information  exchange,  giving  it  a  mandate  to  discuss  implementation  of  those 
instruments.  Member  States  are  considering  extending  the  mandate  of  this  group  to  discuss 
the wider issue of information exchange in the area of police and judicial cooperation. Within 
this  group,  the  Commission  will  monitor  and  participate  in  the  implementation  of  the  Prüm 
Decision and the "Swedish initiative" in the years to come. 

Access to visa data (Visa Information System)  

The  Council  decision  laying  down  the  conditions  under  which  Member  States'  authorities 
responsible  for  internal  security  and  Europol  may  access  the  VIS143  was  in  response  to  the 
Council  conclusions  on  this  issue  of  March  2005144.  Member  States'  authorities  responsible 
for internal security are given access to the VIS in the course of their duties in relation to the 
prevention,  detection  and  investigation  of  criminal  offences,  including  terrorist  acts  and 
threats, subject to compliance with the rules governing the protection of personal data. 

Because the VIS package was only recently adopted, it is too early yet to assess its impact on 
the exchange of information between Member States as part of the "principle of availability". 

Protection of personal data145  

In  2005,  the  Commission  submitted  a  proposal  for  a  Council  Framework  Decision  on  the 
protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in 
criminal  matters.  This  proposal  for  a  framework  decision  was  adopted  in  2008146  and  is  in 
response to the increased exchange of information between EU Member States, notably under 
the "principle of availability", and to more requests from Member States for law enforcement 
agencies to have access to immigration databases. The framework decision seeks to strike a 
balance  between  the  necessary  investigative  tools  of  law  enforcement  in  the  fight  against 
serious crime and the necessary protection of the private sphere of citizens. 

This  instrument  is  applicable  to  cross-border  exchanges  of  personal  data  as  part  police  and 
judicial cooperation. Member States have to implement the instrument within a period of two 
years following its adoption in November 2008; hence it is too early yet for an assessment. 

Because  of  the  sensitivity  of  access  to  and  use  of  personal  data  by  law  enforcement 
authorities,  and  also  because  this  is  the  first  instrument  regulating  this  issue  EU-wide, 
particular care has to be given to how it is implemented.  

The Commission will present an evaluation report five years after adoption of the instrument, 
which will allow sufficient experience to be gained with application of the instrument within 
the EU. One of the important issues to be looked at will be whether this instrument should be 
applied also in future to domestic handling of personal data, its current scope being limited to 
cross-border data exchange.  

143 
144 
145 
146 

See footnote 124. 
Council document 6811/05, p. 15. 
On data protection in general, see section 2.1. 
Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data 
processed  in  the  framework  of  police  and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters,  OJ  L  350, 
30.12.2008, p. 60. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Access to commercial data 

Data  collected  for  commercial  purposes  that  contain  real-time  and  other  information  about 
travel  and  other  trends  have  been  identified  by  law  enforcement  agencies  in  the  EU  as 
providing  additional  information  to  help  them  in  preventing  and  investigating  terrorism  and 
other  serious  crime.  Similar  trends  can  be  observed  outside  the  EU.  So  far  three  types  of 
commercial data have been identified as enhancing law enforcement's capacity to protect the 
EU's internal security more effectively.  

Retention of electronic communications data  

Following the Madrid bombing, the EU identified the collection of electronic communications 
data  as  a  means  of  stepping  up  its  internal  security.  Hence,  the  Action  Plan  required  a 
legislative instrument to be adopted on the retention of data processed in connection with the 
provision  of  public  electronic  communication  services  for  the  detection,  investigation  and 
prosecution of criminal offences.  

The  Data  Retention  Directive147  was  adopted  in  2006  following  a  Commission  proposal148, 
and  largely  harmonised  Member  States'  provisions  on  the  processing  and  retention  of 
electronic  communications  traffic  and  location  data,  to  the  effect  that  data  can  be  made 
available  to  police  and  judicial  authorities  for  the  purpose  of  the  prevention,  investigation, 
detection and prosecution of serious crime. It requires Member States to oblige providers of 
public electronic communications services and networks to retain communications traffic data 
for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. 

To date, all but 4 Member States have transposed the Directive. Member States had the right 
to opt to delay implementation of the directive's provisions relating to Internet access, Internet 
telephony and internet e-mail until 15 March 2009. Eighteen Member States have elected this 
option. The directive is at an advanced stage of implementation, but its impact on enhancing 
security  can  only  be  fully  assessed  in  the  years  to  come  because  of  the  complexity  of  the 
retention of data, especially data transmitted via the Internet. 

The recitals to the directive implicitly acknowledge that a number of areas addressed by the 
directive  will  require  further  clarification,  not  least  due  to  rapidly  developing  technologies. 
For this reason, the Commission set up a data retention experts group, which met for the first 
time in 2008. 

The Commission will continue to seek the advice of the experts group and work closely with 
Member States to ensure that this instrument has a positive effect on the instruments available 
to law enforcement authorities without jeopardising the functioning of the internal market and 
without  impinging  on  data  protection.  An  evaluation  report  by  the  Commission  on  the 
application  of  the  directive  and  its  impact  on  operators  and  consumers  is  scheduled  for 
September 2010.  

147 

148 

Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention 
of  data  generated  or  processed  in  connection  with  the  provision  of  publicly  available  electronic 
communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, 
OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 54. 
COM(2005) 438 final. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Access to Passenger Name Record data 

The  Hague  Programme  asks  the  Commission  “to  bring  forward  a  proposal  for  a  common 
approach to the use of Passenger Name Records for law enforcement purposes”. A coherent 
legal  framework  is  needed  at  EU  level  regarding  the  obligation  of  air  carriers  to  transmit 
passenger  information  to  the  relevant  law  enforcement  authorities  for  the  purposes  of  the 
prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of organised crime and terrorism. 

Following  an  in-depth  impact  assessment,  the  Commission  submitted  a  proposal  for  a 
Framework Decision in 2007149, which covers only international air travel. This instrument is 
still being discussed within the Council. 

Access to financial transactions data 

In  June  2007,  the  United  States  Treasury  Department  gave  a  set  of  Representations  to  the 
European Union in which the Treasury Department undertook to process EU-originating data 
accessed from SWIFT by virtue of the US Treasury's Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme 
(TFTP). The Representations established that SWIFT data will be processed exclusively for 
the fight against terrorism, that such data will be deleted where they are no longer necessary 
for the fight against terrorism and that in any event they will not be retained for longer than 
specified  periods.  The  United  States  also  accepted  that  the  Commission  may  appoint  an 
"eminent European person" to verify its compliance with these unilateral commitments. The 
Commission designated the former French counter-terrorism Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière for 
this role. Judge Bruguière completed his first report in December 2008, which demonstrates 
that  the  United  States  Treasury  Department  has  implemented  effective  controls  and 
safeguards which ensure protection of personal data subpoenaed for the purpose of the TFTP 
Representations. Following his review of the TFTP and its privacy-related safeguards, Judge 
Bruguière  formulated  a  series  of  recommendations  to  ensure  that  these  measures  are 
continued and, where possible, enhanced. As a result of the information Judge Bruguière had 
had access to during discussions with the US Treasury Department, it can be concluded that 
since  its  inception  the  TFTP  has  been  and  continues  to  be  of  significant  value  in  the  fight 
against terrorism in the United States, in Europe and beyond. 

Strengthening external action  

EU-US PNR agreements 

In 2005, an EU team undertook a review of the 2004 PNR agreement with the United States 
on the transfer of PNR data. The EU team concluded that the US authorities had applied the 
agreement satisfactorily, in particular their Undertakings to processing PNR data from the EU 
under certain conditions, and made a number of recommendations.  

Following the ruling of the Court of Justice of May 2006150, in which the Court annulled the 
Council  and  Commission  decisions  (2004/496/EC  and  2004/535/EC)  allowing  the  2004 
agreement  to  enter  into  force,  the  EU  decided  to  negotiate  an  interim  agreement,  which 

149 
150 

COM(2007) 654 final. 
Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, Parliament v. Council. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
became applicable in October 2006 and expired at the end of July 2007151. A long-term PNR 
agreement  was  signed  with  the  United  States  in  July  2007,  thus  ensuring  that  there  was  no 
loophole once the 2006 interim PNR agreement expired152. It is provisionally applicable and 
will  enter  into  force  as  soon  as  all  the  Member  States  have  finalised  their  domestic 
consultation procedures. The agreement strikes a reasonable balance between the fight against 
terrorism  and  the  data  protection  and  preservation  of  transatlantic  passenger  flows.  The 
agreement provides for the United States to keep EU-originated PNR data for 7 years, while 
allowing a further 8 years of retention on a "dormant" basis (i.e. access after the 7 years will 
be  much  more  restricted  that  during  the  first  7).  In  exchange,  the  United  States  accepted  a 
joint  review  of  the  operation  of  the  agreement  by  the  Commissioner  responsible  of  Justice, 
Freedom and Security and his US counterpart, and granted EU citizens the possibility of filing 
complaints and having access to their own PNR data if so requested. The Agreement will be 
valid for seven years. 

A review of the 2007 US PNR agreement is scheduled for early 2009.  

Other PNR agreements 

An agreement on PNR has also been signed with Canada153. A joint review of the operation of 
the  agreement  was  carried  out  in  November  2008.  The  results  of  the  joint  review  will  be 
presented  in  2009.  The  PNR  agreement  with  Canada  will  expire  on  22  September  2009. 
Canada has expressed its wish to continue its co-operation with the EU on this matter.  

An  EU-Australia  PNR  agreement  became  provisionally  applicable  in  June  2008154.  It  only 
applies to EU-sourced PNR data for passengers travelling to, from or via Australia. Under the 
Agreement Australia undertakes to ensure that the Australian Customs Service complies with 
its commitments regarding the processing of EU PNR data. The Agreement will be valid for 
seven years. No joint review to assess implementation of the Agreement has been held yet.  

A common feature of these PNR agreements is that they provide legal certainty for air carriers 
and  EU-based  reservation  systems  to  transfer  EU  PNR  data  to  third  countries'  law 
enforcement agencies in full compliance with EU data protection law. They also provide for 
the possibility of assessing implementation by means of a joint review. 

EU-US High Level Contact Group 

The  EU-US  High  Level  Contact  Group  on  data  sharing  and  data  protection  for  law 
enforcement purposes, set up in November 2006, assesses a more permanent solution to data 

151 

152 

153 

154 

Agreement  between  the  European  Union  and  the  United  States  of  America  on  the  processing  and 
transfer  of  passenger  name  record  (PNR)  data  by  air  carriers  to  the  United  States  Department  of 
Homeland Security, OJ L 298, 27.10.2006, p. 29. 
Agreement  between  the  European  Union  and  the  United  States  of  America  on  the  processing  and 
transfer  of  Passenger  Name  Record  (PNR)  data  by  air  carriers  to  the  United  States  Department  of 
Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement), OJ L 204, 4.8.2007, p. 18. 
Agreement  between  the  European  Community  and  the  Government  of  Canada  on  the  processing  of 
Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record data, OJ L 82, 21.3.2006, p. 15. 
Agreement  between  the  European  Union  and  Australia  on  the  processing  and  transfer  of  European 
Union-sourced passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian customs service, OJ 
L 213, 8.8.2008, p. 49. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
protection  issues  relating  to  the  US-EU  exchange  of  information.  Since  its  was  established, 
discussions  have  focused  on  identifying  common  data  protection  principles.  The  results  of 
these discussions were set out in a final report of May 2008155 endorsed by both parties listing 
common language on 12 data protection principles. The report also stated that an international 
agreement is the best way forward to endorse these principles in US-EU data exchanges and 
identified  a  number  of  outstanding  issues,  including  judicial  redress.  The  results  of  further 
expert talks were embodied in a declaration adopted at the 2008 December JHA Ministerial 
meeting  in  Washington156.  Talks  are  continuing  on  outstanding  issues  relating  to  the  wider 
international  relationship.  Should  these  discussions  come  to  a  successful  conclusion, 
negotiations could be opened between the EU and the US to translate the results of these talks 
into a framework agreement on data protection . 

III. 

Future challenges 

Most  of  the  instruments  adopted  under  the  "principle  of  availability"  are  of  recent  date  and 
will  be  implemented  over  the  coming  years.  This  will  be  an  important  starting  point  for 
shaping an EU-wide policy on exchange of and access to information in the area of police and 
judicial cooperation, which will continue to be a high policy priority for the EU. In addition, 
the external component of this policy is likely to continue to play a major role, not in the least 
because  of  the  global  scope  of  terrorist  threats  and  organised  crime,  which  call  for  ongoing 
interaction between the European Union and key partners. 

As regards the "principle of availability", the focus in the coming years must be on ensuring 
the effective implementation of the Prüm package and the "Swedish initiative". At the same 
time, however, there is a pressing need to establish an overarching strategic approach to law 
enforcement  information  exchange  within  the  EU.  This  strategy  on  information  exchange 
should  include  an  assessment  of  operational  needs  of  Member  States'  law  enforcement 
authorities  and  identify  the  most  effective  ways  of  delivering  those  information  needs.  This 
also implies an assessment of data protection rules in the context of information exchange to 
ensure  that  these  provide  the  requisite  safeguards  for  citizens  without  unduly  restricting 
exchange of information.  

As regards requests for access to commercial data focus on electronic communications, PNR 
and  financial  transactions  data,  negotiations  have  to  continue  in  the  Council  on  the  draft 
framework decision on establishing an EU PNR system. Depending on the outcome of these 
negotiations,  the  Commission  will  consider  further  action  within  the  framework  of  the 
information strategy.  

In the field of access to commercial data, priority should be given to implementing the Data 
Retention  Directive,  in  particular  by  calling  upon  the  expertise  of  the  expert  group 
accompanying  this  process  and,  if  need  be,  the  use  of  infringement  procedures  in  cases  of 
non-compliance. 

The Framework Decision on data protection in police and judicial cooperation provides many 
of the safeguards needed for efficient exchange of information. It remains to be seen whether 

155 
156 

Council document 9831/08. 
Council document 16477/08. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a  more  fundamental  review  of  the  current  EU  approach  to  data  protection  should  also  be 
undertaken. 

As  part  of  the  implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision,  thought  should  be  given  to  the 
manner in which the European Institutions and especially the Commission should be advised 
on  data  protection  in  the  area  of  police  and  judicial  cooperation  and  on  how  to  efficiently 
organise oversight.  

In the absence of a horizontal European Union instrument on the protection of personal data 
in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the current approach is of the case-by-
case variety and lacks harmonisation: data protection requirements have been laid down in a 
variety  of  legislative  texts  and  the  scope  and  nature  of  these  requirements  depend  on  the 
specific  objective  the  legislative  texts  aim  to  regulate  and  on  the  personal  data  exchanged. 
Apart from the Prüm decision, and the legislation on the SIS and the VIS, there are several 
other legislative texts that contain data protection requirements157. In many of the above cases, 
more  time  is  needed  to  observe  the  level  and  quality  of the  implementation  by  the  Member 
States of these instruments, before considering whether harmonisation beyond the Framework 
Decision on data protection is necessary. To this end, the following priorities should be taken 
into account: 

•  Monitoring  the  application  of  data  protection  requirements  laid  down  in  the 
relevant legal instruments, in particular the Framework Decision on the protection 
of personal data, with the aim to working towards further strengthening this policy 
issue  an  evaluation  report  on 
area.  In  particular 
implementation.  

the  Commission  will 

•  Depending  on  how  the  EU's  constitutional  framework  evolves,  starting  a  more 

fundamental review of the existing EU approach to data protection. 

•  Developing  a  new  system  of  oversight  and  advice  for  the  protection  of  personal 

data in the area of police and judicial cooperation. 

In  terms  of  external  action,  in  the  light  of  the  experience  gained  since  2003  with  the 
negotiations of a number of PNR agreements with third countries, the time has come to draw 
lessons from those negotiations and to further develop the EU policy in this area. To this end, 
an EU strategy on the exchange of PNR data with third countries should be formulated. 

157 

In  this  context,  reference  should  be  made  in  particular  to:  the  Convention  on  the  use  of  information 
technology for custom purposes related to the Customs Information System (CIS); the Convention on 
mutual  assistance  and  cooperation  between  customs  administrations;  the  Convention  on  Mutual 
Assistance in criminal matters of the European Union; Council Decision concerning arrangements for 
cooperation  between  financial  intelligence  units  of  the  Member  States  in  respect  of  exchanging 
information;  Council  Decision  on  the  exchange  of  information  extracted  from  the  criminal  record; 
Council Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings; Council Framework 
Decision  on  simplifying  the  exchange  of  information  and  intelligence  between  law  enforcement 
authorities of the Member States of the European Union; Council Decision setting up Eurojust; Council 
Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol). 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Terrorism 

I. 

Objectives  

The  Hague  Programme  underlined  the  importance  of  effectively  preventing  and  combating 
terrorism  while  fully  respecting  fundamental  rights.  To  this  end,  the  Programme  put  strong 
emphasis  on  stepping  up  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  with  a  view  to  protecting 
citizens and addressing the security of the Union as a whole. Underlining the importance of 
implementing the EU and Action Plan158 on combating terrorism, the Programme identified a 
number  of  specific  priorities  for  action  including  preventing  radicalisation  and  recruitment, 
combating  the  financing  of  terrorism,  improving  the  security  of  explosives  and  their 
precursors,  ensuring  a  high  level  of  exchange  of  information  between  security  services, 
ensuring adequate assistance to victims of terrorism and consolidating external action.  

II. 

Main developments  

The  counter-terrorism  priorities  identified  in  the  Hague  Programme  have  led  to  significant 
progress on addressing the threat of terrorism throughout the European Union. This process 
has  included  the  adoption  of  numerous  binding  and  non-binding  measures  designed  to 
enhance the capacity of all Member States to prevent and combat terrorism. This effort is still 
in progress, however. Many159 of the tools developed have been a success. Nevertheless, the 
emergence  of  new  forms  of  terrorism,  the  need  to  make  better  use  of  new  information 
technologies  and  security  research,  the  full  implementation  of  existing  counter-terrorism 
measures  and  the  identification  of  new  tools  will  require  a  renewed  dedication  and 
commitment. 

The period of implementation of the Hague Programme  has seen greater EU cooperation in 
the fight against terrorism and in particular better use of Europol and Eurojust. Both Europol 
and  Eurojust  have  set  up  dedicated  means  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  counter-terrorism-
related information and increase operational cooperation on the threat posed by transnational 
terrorism.  

In line with the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy of December 2005160, the EU has focused its 
efforts  on  four  main  objectives:  preventing,  protecting,  pursuing  and  responding.  The  main 
developments outlined below are complemented by other initiatives of relevance to the fight 
against  terrorism,  such  as  on  crisis  management,  civil  protection,  critical  infrastructure 
protection, access to PNR and the external dimension, which are covered in other sections of 
this chapter. 

Preventing radicalisation and recruitment 

Preventing radicalisation that can lead to acts of terrorism and recruitment is at the core of the 
"preventing"  strand  of  the  European  Union's  counter-terrorism  policy.  Following  the 

158 
159 

160 

EN 

also  European  Council 

Council document 10586/04. 
See 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/79637.pdf. 
Council document 14469/4/05 rev 4. 

"Declaration 

combating 

terrorism", 

on 

available 

at: 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Communication on terrorist recruitment161, the Commission  undertook a series  of initiatives 
to  deepen  its  knowledge  of  the  radicalisation  processes  and  to  identify  good  practices  in 
tackling this phenomenon. 

The Commission set up an Expert Group on violent radicalisation in 2006, which produced a 
report  in  2008  on  the  state  of  play  of  academic  research  in  the  field.  The  Commission  also 
contracted four comparative studies162 on factors that could possibly trigger or affect violent 
radicalisation processes: the beliefs, ideologies and narrative of violent radicals; the methods 
through  which  violent  radicals  mobilise  support  for  terrorism  and  find  new  recruits;  and  on 
best  practices  in  cooperation  initiatives  between  authorities  and  civil  society  designed  to 
prevent and respond to violent radicalisation. 

The studies provided an important backdrop for discussion surrounding the update of the EU 
Strategy163  and  Action  Plan  at  the  end  of  2008  by  the  Council  and  constitute  an  important 
starting  point  for  further  discussions  in  the  field  within  the  network  of  experts  on 
radicalisation set up by the Commission.  

The  Commission  also  held  a  conference  in  2007  on  the  role  of  education  in  preventing 
radicalisation,  which  brought  together  educators,  religious  leaders  and  policy-makers.  An 
analysis of the responses to a questionnaire sent to the Member States to map out policies to 
address violent radicalisation was also shared with the Member States. 

Through  its  funding  programme  on  "Prevention  of  and  Fight  Against  Crime"164,  the 
Commission  has  given  financial  support  to  projects  that  tackle  radicalisation  leading  to 
terrorism. An intermediate evaluation of this fund will be finalised in 2010. A joint Austrian-
French-German  project  produced  in  the  production  of  a  "Handbook  of  Good  Practices"  to 
tackle radicalisation within prisons, which will serve as a basis for more work at the EU level. 
Another six projects are currently underway.  

Radicalisation leading to acts of terrorism is a non-linear and multi-stage process of varying 
duration. There are multiple pathways to the process and no single root cause for it. However, 
a number of contributing factors may be singled out as facilitators. Individuals who have been 
involved  in  terrorist  activities  exhibit  a  diversity  of  social  backgrounds  and  have  been 
influenced  by  various  combinations  of  motivations  during  their  diverse  radicalisation 
processes. The studies contracted by the Commission and other recent research165 reveal that 

161 
162 

163 
164 

165 

COM(2005) 313 final. 
Compagnie  Européenne  d'Intelligence  Stratégique  (CEIS),  Paris,  "Les  facteurs  de  création  ou  de 
modification  des  processus  de  radicalisation  violente,  chez  les  jeunes  in  particulier";  The  Change 
Institute,  London,  "Beliefs,  ideology  and  narratives";  King's  College,  London,  "Recruitment  and 
Mobilisation for the Islamist Militant Movement in Europe"; The Change Institute, London, "Study on 
best  practices  in  cooperation  between  authorities  and  civil  society  with  a  view  to  the  prevention  and 
response 
at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism/prevention/fsj_terrorism_prevention_prevent_en.htm.  
Council document 15175/08. 
Council Decision 2007/125/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part 
of the General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the Specific Programme ‘Prevention 
of and Fight against Crime’, OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 7. 
Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism/prevention/fsj_terrorism_prevention_prevent_en.htm. 

radicalisation". 

available 

studies 

violent 

These 

are 

to 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
radicalisation is a social phenomenon and does not normally take place in isolation. Despite 
the  diverse  social  contexts  within  which  radicalisation  takes  place,  which  should  always  be 
kept  in  mind,  the  studies  also  reveal  that  the  trends,  manifestations  and  dynamics  of 
radicalisation leading to acts of terrorism exhibit striking similarities across Europe. 

In parallel with this non-legislative work, in 2007, the Commission proposed an amendment 
to  the  Framework  Decision  on  combating  terrorism166  designed  to  incorporate  the  specific 
offences  of  public  provocation,  training  and  recruitment  to  terrorism  as  criminal  offences, 
following  the  ground-breaking  Convention  on  the  prevention  of  terrorism  of  the  Council  of 
Europe.  This  amendment  was  adopted  by  the  Council  in  2008167,  and  thus  it  is  too  early  to 
assess its impact. 

That said, Member States' implementation of the original Framework Decision on combating 
terrorism168  has  been  assessed  twice:  the  first  evaluation  report  was  adopted  in  2004  and 
covered  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom169; and the second report was  adopted in 2007 and 
covered  all  Member  States  except  Romania  and  Bulgaria170.  The  last  report  concluded  that 
implementation is generally satisfactory, despite a number of major issues concerning specific 
Member  States.  In  particular,  it  was  stated  that  the  definition  of  terrorist  offences  raised 
concerns in some Member States, such as a catalogue of terrorist offences was missing, only a 
very  general  definition  was  applicable,  and  even  the  definition  of  a  terrorist  offence  was 
completely lacking in one Member State. A staff working paper accompanying this report171 
contains  a  detailed  analysis  of  national  measures  taken  to  comply  with  the  Framework 
Decision,  plus  a  table  specifying,  in  accordance  with  the  information  received  by  the 
Commission, the national provisions transposing each of the articles.  

Since terrorism affects the security of all EU citizens, and since both radicalising efforts and 
planning of violent activities are often coordinated across different countries by individuals or 
groups  espousing  a  similar  ideology,  EU  action  that  is  complementary  to  Member  States' 
efforts should be beneficial and is likely to reduce the threat of radicalisation that may lead to 
acts of terrorism.  

Combating the financing of terrorism  

The  Hague  Programme  emphasised  the  importance  of  measures  to  combat  the  financing  of 
terrorism. It called for existing instruments to be made more efficient, such as the monitoring 
of suspicious financial flows and the freezing of assets, and for new tools dealing with cash 
transactions  and  the  institutions  involved  in  them.  In  addition,  the  Action  Plan  stressed  the 
importance of preventing the misuse of charitable organisations for the financing of terrorism. 

166 
167 

168 

169 
170 
171 

COM(2007) 650 final. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2008/919/JHA  of  28 November  2008  amending  Framework  Decision 
2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, OJ L 330, 9.12.2008, p. 21. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA  of  13  June  2002  on  combating  terrorism,  OJ  L  164, 
22.6.2002, p. 3. 
COM(2004) 409 final. 
COM(2007) 681 final. 
SEC(2007) 1463. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A broad range of instruments have been adopted. In terms of the impact of these measures, 
the Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money 
laundering  and  terrorist  financing172  helped  to  improve  the  detecting  of  suspicious  financial 
flows  as  it  extended  the  obligation  to  report  on  suspicious  transactions  beyond  financial 
institutions  also  to  designated  non-financial  businesses  and  professions,  such  as  casinos, 
lawyers  and  others.  Better  monitoring  of  financial  flows  was  also  facilitated  by  the  2006 
regulation laying down rules for payment service providers to send information on the payer 
throughout  the  payment  chain173.  This  is  done  for  the  purposes  of  prevention,  investigation 
and detection of money laundering and terrorist financing. The regulation transposes Special 
Recommendation VII (SRVII) of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) into EU law and is 
part  of  the  EU  Plan  of  Action  to  Combat  Terrorism.  In  terms  of  legislation  concerning  the 
freezing  of  funds  of  suspected  terrorists,  the  Commission  made  suitable  amendments  to 
ensure that the lists of persons and entities whose assets have to be frozen are kept up-to-date. 

As regards new tools designed to combat the risks caused by cash transactions, a regulation 
on  controls  of  cash  entering  or  leaving  the  Community  was  adopted  in  2005174.  Under  this 
legislation,  travellers  entering  the  EU  from  or  leaving  the  EU  for  a  third  country  with  €
10,000 or more in cash are required to make a written declaration. 

Finally, progress has been made on preventing the misuse of charitable organisations for the 
financing of terrorism. In 2005, the Commission submitted a Communication on this issue175, 
which  contained  a  code  of  conduct  for  non-profit  organisations  plus  a  number  of 
recommendations.  In  December  2005,  the  Council  agreed  on  five  principles  that  should  be 
taken  into  account  when  implementing  measures  aimed  at  preventing  terrorist  abuse  of  the 
non-profit sector176. These principles, together with the FATF Interpretative Note to Special 
Recommendation  VIII  adopted  in  2006,  provide  a  basis  for  further  Commission  policy 
development. In addition, the Commission has launched two studies in this context and held 
two important meetings, in April 2008 and February 2009, with non-profit organisations and 
representatives  from  public  authorities  to  discuss  the  outcome  of  these  studies,  which  will 
serve as a basis for future proposals in this area. 

The 2004 EU Strategy  Paper  on the  Fight against  Terrorism Financing was revised in 2008 
and endorsed by the Council in 2008177. This revised strategy aligns the core objectives of the 
EU  and  Commission’s  work  in  the  fight  against  terrorist  financing  with  current  terrorist 
financing trends and threats. Some of the key issues in this regard include: 

•  Making efficient use of financial intelligence in terrorism-related investigations.  

172 

173 

174 

175 
176 
177 

Directive  2005/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  October  2005  on  the 
prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purpose  of  money  laundering  and  terrorist 
financing, OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15. 
Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 
on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds, OJ L 345, 8.12.2006, p. 1. 
Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on 
controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 9. 
COM(2005) 620 final.  
Council document 14390/05, p. 31. 
Council document 11778/1/08 rev 1. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  Promoting the use of financial investigation as a law enforcement technique in the 

EU-27 through common minimum training standards. 

•  Continuing to address the potential misuse of non-profit organisations for terrorist 

purposes. 

Improving the security of explosives and their precursors  

A  major  landmark  in  the  area  of  security  of  explosives  was  the  adoption  by  the  Council  in 
2008  of  the  Action  Plan  on  Enhancing  the  Security  of  Explosives178,  following  a  2007 
Communication179.  The  Action  Plan  contains  some  50  specific  measures  to  be  taken  and  is 
builds  on  the  work  of  the  Explosives  Security  Experts  Task  Force  (ESETF),  a  forum  of 
around  100  experts  representing  public  and  private  stakeholders  that  was  convened  by  the 
Commission in 2007.  

In  order  to  reduce  the  availability  and  accessibility  of  chemical  precursors  to  explosives,  a 
Standing Committee on Precursors, composed of experts from both the public and the private 
sector, was established. The Commission will use the Committee's conclusions as a basis for 
suggesting new concrete measures.  

Priorities  identified  in  the  Action  Plan  on  Enhancing  the  Security  of  Explosives  are  in  the 
process of being implemented, many of them funded from the 2008 "Prevention of and Fight 
Against Crime" financial programme. Closer cooperation on response to incidents involving 
explosives will be enhanced through the European Explosive Ordnance Disposal Network set 
up in 2008. Response to incidents involving explosives will also be improved through better 
information exchange via the European Bomb Data System, currently under development by 
Europol, supported by EU funding. Funding was also provided for the installation of an EU-
wide Early Warning System, which will serve to notify the authorities of any potential threats 
following missing or stolen explosives. Work on detection-related issues at EU level will be 
enhanced  by  contributions  from  a  Network  on  the  Detection  of  Explosives,  which  will 
provide expertise and support the Commission in its initiatives and activities in this sphere.  

A  number  of  other  initiatives  have  also  greatly  contributed  to  enhancing  the  security  of 
explosives. In particular, better identification and traceability of explosives has been enabled 
by the adoption of a Commission Directive180, security of the transport of explosives has been 
enhanced by a 2008 Directive181, and the risk related to certain precursors has been decreased 
by  the  amendment  of  the  old  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC,  which  limits  sales  of  highly 
concentrated ammonium nitrate fertiliser to the general public182.  

178 
179 
180 

181 

182 

Council document, 8311/08. 
COM(2007) 651 final. 
Commission  Directive  2008/43/EC  of  4  April  2008  setting  up,  pursuant  to  Council  Directive 
93/15/EEC,  a  system  for  the  identification  and  traceability  of  explosives  for  civil  uses,  OJ  L  94, 
5.4.2008, p. 8. 
Directive  2008/68/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  September  2008  on  the 
inland transport of dangerous goods, OJ L 260, 30.9.2008, p. 13. 
Decision  No  1348/2008/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008 
amending  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC  as  regards  restrictions  on  the  marketing  and  use  of  2-(2-
methoxyethoxy)ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol, methylenediphenyl diisocyanate, cyclohexane and 
ammonium nitrate, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 108. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Other measures  

A  significant  effort  has  been  made  to  provide  support  for  victims  of  terrorist  acts  through 
funding of projects geared to the protection of terrorism victims. The specific impact of these 
measures  will  be  assessed  in  due  course  as  most  of  the  projects  are  still  ongoing.  Most 
projects  achieved  their  aims  and  helped  to  increase  the  capacity  of  victims’  support 
organisations and, directly or indirectly, the victims of terrorist act themselves. These projects 
have  successfully  demonstrated  the  case  for  Commission  involvement  in  this  field  and  the 
scope for an enhanced engagement in this respect. 

III. 

Future challenges 

Despite  the  efforts  made,  the  number  of  terrorist  attacks  continues  to  increase  in  the  EU183. 
According to Europol, 583 terrorist attacks were recorded in the EU in 2007, 91% of which 
were  perpetrated  by  separatist  terrorists.  The  use  of  home-made  explosives  continues  to 
increase and there is a rapidly growing amount of terrorist propaganda being distributed over 
the Internet; the number of suspect terrorist arrested in the EU is also on the increase. These 
figures confirm that renewed commitment is needed to addressing the terrorist threat.  

Priorities  in  the  area  of  prevention  of  radicalisation  and  recruitment  should  focus  on 
devising  long-term  strategies  that  make  extremist  ideologies  unappealing,  targeting  those 
actively  promoting  the  ideology  and  the  places  where  it  is  propagated  including  on  the 
internet.  

The EU must help to engage with civil society and thus to establish stable, genuine and lasting 
partnerships  to  address  the  phenomenon.  As  the  EU  continues  to  deepen  its  knowledge  and 
understanding of the phenomenon, through linking up more with academics and experts in the 
field,  policies  must  continue  to  be  devised  and  updated  accordingly.  The  use  of 
communication strategies as and enabling tool for delivery will continue to be a crucial aspect 
in successfully countering this phenomenon. 

Combating  the  financing  of  terrorism  continues  to  be  a  high  priority.  In  this  context,  the 
Commission  has  commissioned  two  studies  on  non-profit  organisations,  one  on  their 
vulnerability  in  terms  of  financial  crime,  including  terrorist  financing,  and  one  on  their 
transparency  and  accountability.  Working  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Counter-terrorism 
Coordinator, the Commission will use the results of these studies to guide further actions.  

The EU still faces a number of challenges with regard to the security of explosives and their 
precursors.  

Implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  on  Enhancing  the  Security  of  Explosives  by  all  parties 
involved (European Institutions, Member States, private actors) should remain a priority. The 
challenge  will  be  to  support  and  supervise  implementation  by  appropriate  means,  including 
financial support via the "Prevention of and Fight Against Crime" financial programme.  

183 

EN 

Europol,  EU  Terrorism  Situation 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-
SAT/TESAT2008.pdf. 

and  Trend  Report  TE-SAT  2008, 

available 

52 

at: 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A harmonised framework for regulating precursors to explosives should be considered. On the 
one hand, the work of the Standing Committee on precursors has shown so far that there is a 
high need and demand for better regulation of precursors to explosives. On the other hand, it 
has also shown that whilst effective and acceptable regulation would increase the security of 
precursors not creating disproportionate burdens on industry poses a challenge.  

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
4.3. 

Police cooperation  

I. 

Objectives  

The  Hague  Programme  placed  strong  emphasis  on  improving  law  enforcement  cooperation 
and developing the Schengen acquis in the field of cross-border cooperation. It underlined the 
importance of a specific programme of exchange of law enforcement officers and identifying 
actions to improve operational cooperation.  

The Programme also stressed the need for intensified practical cooperation between Member 
States'  police  and  customs  authorities  as  well  as  with  Europol  and  Eurojust.  Joint  customs, 
police and/or judicial operations should become a frequent tool of practical cooperation.  

II. 

Main developments  

Improvement of law enforcement cooperation and development of the Schengen acquis 
in respect of cross-border operational law enforcement cooperation 

Europol  has  become  a  key  contributor  to  this  kind  of  cooperation.  Customs  co-operation  in 
the 3rd pillar has also been strengthened. 

Europol has made for a better understanding of organised crime in Europe through its annual 
"European Organised Crime Threat Assessment"184 (OCTA). The priorities established by the 
Council every two years on the basis of the OCTA conclusions help to improve how police 
forces operate within the EU. Putting these priorities into practice was the subject of a report 
by  the  Council  General  Secretariat  in  2007185.  Europol  has  also  developed  specific 
cooperation tools, such as the Information System and the Analytical Work Files (AWF). The 
Information  System  was  based  on  Member  States  and  Europol  contributions  (the  latter,  for 
data  originating  from  third  parties  and  AWF)  and  can  be  directly  consulted  by  authorised 
national  units,  liaison  officers  and  Europol  officers.  The  number  of  record  introduced  is 
constantly growing but still below the actual capacity of the system, which limits the chances 
of finding useful matches. Evaluation tools have been introduced to help increase the quality 
and level of the use of the Information System. 

The  Analytical  Work  Files  provide  police  services  in  Member  States  with  data  on  specific 
categories of crime. Currently there are 18 AWP focusing on different crime phenomena, such 
as  credit  card  fraud  or  synthetic  drugs  trafficking.  The  transfer  of  AWF  should  reduce  the 
processing  time  up  to  90%  and  improve  Europol's  analytical  capabilities.  A  protocol  to  the 
Europol Convention entered into force in 2007186 and allows Member States representatives 
and  third  organisations  with  which  Europol  has  concluded  operational  cooperation 
agreements  to  exchange  personal  data  and  participate  to  the  AWF  system.  Eurojust  is 
associated to 12 of the 18 AWF. 

184 
185 
186 

Available at: http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=publications. 
Council document 8102/3/08 rev 3. 
Council Act of 27 November 2003 drawing up, on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the 
Establishment  of  a  European  Police  Office  (Europol  Convention),  a  Protocol  amending  that 
Convention, OJ C 2, 6.1.2004, p. 1. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Europol  is  consequently  at  the  heart  of  the  exchange  of  information  within  the  EU,  which 
means that Member States should help it run smoothly and efficiently. 

A  2005  Council  decision187  designated  Europol  as  the  central  office  for  combating  Euro 
counterfeiting. In fulfilling this mandate, Europol closely cooperates with EU Member States, 
Europol’s partners and the European Central Bank (ECB). This status also qualifies Europol 
as the worldwide contact point for combating euro counterfeiting. 

In  May  2007,  Europol  joined  forces  with  the  ECB  in  the  Hague  to  organise  the  first 
international conference on the protection of the Euro against counterfeiting. The project on 
euro  counterfeiting  spawned  several  initiatives  focusing  on  operational  action  inside  and 
outside the European Union and the Euro area. A number of operations carried out by the law 
enforcement  authorities  responsible  were  concluded  with  the  support  of  Europol.  For 
example, the largest ever seizure of counterfeit Euro banknotes outside Europe was made on 
28 August 2008 in the capital of Colombia, Bogota. The police operation was carried out by 
the  Colombian  National  Police  jointly  supported  by  officers  from  the  Spanish  Brigada  de 
Investigacion del Banco de Espana and Europol: counterfeit money with a face value of more 
than € 11 million was seized. 

The  Council  Decision  establishing  Europol  and  replacing  the  Convention  will  give  the 
European  Police  Office  greater  operational  flexibility  to  respond  more  rapidly  to  trends  in 
crime188.  It  will  extend  Europol's  powers  to  all  serious  cross-border  crime  phenomena  and 
give  it  the  status  of  a  European  Agency.  The  role  of  the  European  Parliament  will  be 
strengthened  since  its  budgetary  powers  will  make  it  possible  to  exert  stricter  control  on 
Europol's activities. 

The new Europol Decision will also improve Europol's effectiveness in supporting Member 
States' police forces and thus step up police cooperation and the fight against certain forms of 
serious crime and terrorism. A revised Cooperation Agreement between Eurojust and Europol 
has  been  approved  by  the  Council  in  June  2009189,  replacing  the  old  2004  agreement.  This 
agreement establishes and reinforces the close cooperation between the two bodies in order to 
increase their effectiveness in combating serious forms of international crime which fall in the 
respective competence, and to avoid duplication of work. In particular, this will be achieved 
through  the  exchange  of  operational,  strategic,  and  technical  information,  as  well  as  the 
coordination of activities.  

Europol  currently  produces  an  annual  activity  report,  which  is  sent  to  the  Council  and  is 
publicly accessible on the internet; the last version covers 2007 activities190. The new Council 
Decision  provides  for  the  Europol  management  board  to  request  an  independent  external 

187 

188 

189 
190 

Council  Decision  2005/511/JHA  of  12  July  2005  on  protecting  the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  by 
designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting, OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 
35.  
Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol), OJ 
L 121, 15.5.2008, p. 37. 
Not yet published on the Official Journal. 
Available at: 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Annual_Reports/Annual%20Report%202007.pdf. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
evaluation of the implementation of the Europol decision and activities every four years. This 
report will be addressed to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission.  

9 operational cooperation agreements191 and 19 strategic agreements192 are in force between 
Europol  and  third  parties.  10  operational  cooperation  agreements193  and  1  strategic 
agreement194 are under negotiations. 

Police – customs cooperation 

The  Council  approved  three  Actions  Plans  for  the  strategy  for  customs  cooperation  in  the 
third pillar195. 40 actions have been carried out in the implementation of the customs strategy 
in  the  third  pillar.  These  centred  on  new  forms  of  cooperation  and  improving  the  existing 
cooperation processes. The Customs Cooperation Working Group – where the Commission is 
fully  associated  –  introduced  a  new  kind  of  working  method  to  implement  the  Action  Plan, 
based on "project groups". The Commission took part in most part of the project groups and 
funded some of them.  

A  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  work  programme  concerning  customs  cooperation 
during the period 2004-2006 was presented to the Council in 2007196. It concluded that this 
has  made  a  significantly  contribution  to  efforts  in  the  customs  domain  to  boost  the  area  of 
justice, freedom and security within the EU.  

Joint operational police and customs actions focused on different threats, some of them more 
customs-orientated but often the police forces involved. 13 Joint Customs Operations (JCOs) 
mainly targeted smuggling and criminal groups involved in illicit activities concerning drugs, 
weapons, cigarettes and other highly taxed  goods. The  basic  aim of JCOs  is  to  improve the 
fight  against  smuggling  drugs  and  other  sensitive  goods,  and  to  step  up  operational 
cooperation  between  customs  administrations.  The  vast  majority  of  these  JCOs  have  been 
funded by the EU programmes AGIS and its successor ISEC ("Prevention of and fight against 
crime"), managed by the European Commission. 

Operations  "Conquest  2"  (targeting  heroin,  cocaine  and  others  drug  smuggling  in  maritime 
transport of containers, bulk goods and single consignments), "Fireball" (countering firearms 
smuggling)  or  "Red  Nose"(fight  against  smuggling  of  cocaine  by  air  passengers)  are  only  a 
few  of  the  success  stories.  The  Commission  also  provided  technical  support  and  Europol  is 
also becoming increasingly involved.  

191 
192 

193 

194 
195 

196 

Interpol, Norway, Iceland, USA, Eurojust, Canada, Switzerland, Croatia, Australia. 
EMCDDA,  USA,  ECB,  WCO,  European  Commission,  Russia,  UNODC,  OLAF,  Turkey,  Colombia, 
SitCen, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Moldova, FYROM, Frontex, Cepol, Montenegro, Serbia (the last 
two still to be ratified), ESDP civilian missions. 
Albania,  Bosnia-Herzegovina,  Colombia,  ESDP  EuLex  Kosovo  civilian  missions,  FYROM,  Israel, 
Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Russia. 
Ukraine. 
Implementation  and  evaluation  of  the  work  programme  concerning  customs  cooperation  approved  by 
the JHA Council on 30 March 2004 following the Council Resolution of 2 October 2003 on a strategy 
for customs cooperation (2004-2006). The Article 36 Committee approved the first 3–year Action Plan 
in December 2003 (Doc. 15315/2/93 rev 2.) In 2006 and 2008, the Article 36 Committee approved the 
second  and  third  action  plan  (Doc.  13424/2/06  rev  2  and  8284/1/08  rev  1)  for  periods  of  18  months: 
2007-first half 2008 and second half 2008/2009). 
Council document 5674/07. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It  is  important  to  continue  to  support  the  setting-up  and  development  of  Joint  Police  and 
Customs  Co-operation  Centres  (PCCCs)  through  funding  and  awareness-raising  initiatives. 
Sharing  of  best  practices  to  specify  further  needs  for  improvement,  and  the  creation  and 
maintenance  of  a  common  methodology  manual  for  setting  up  of  joint  customs  and  police 
operations should also be encouraged. 

Exchange programmes between law enforcement agencies 

The European Police College (CEPOL) began to operate as a European agency in 2006 and in 
the  first  year  organised  62  training-related  activities  (i.e.  courses,  seminars,  exchange 
conferences)  with  1,368  participants;  in  2007  the  number  of  these  activities  rose  to  85  with 
1,922 participants. In 2007 the attendance was only 70% of the planned rate.  

The  first  exchange  programme  on  a  European  scale  was  carried  out  by  means  of  an  AGIS 
funded  project  of  which  CEPOL  was  the  beneficiary.  The  project  began  in  2006  and  was 
completed  in  2008,  and  benefitted  from  a  total  grant  of  €  1.6  million.  It  involved  135 
participants (police officers and trainers) from 20 countries in 2006 and 25 countries in 2007.  

Assessments  of  the  final  results  and  outcomes  of  the  exchange  project  will  be  essential  to 
gauge the effectiveness of this kind of action and whether they should be promoted along the 
same lines in future. In the meantime, the Commission has agreed to co-fund CEPOL on this 
initiative – for 2009 only – to the tune of € 510,000.  

As regards Europol, the training programme needs to be continued in order to improve police 
officers' knowledge of how CEPOL works and what its potential is.  

The Commission will need to review the financing processes of its Programme to ensure that 
EU  funds  are  more  readily  available  and  therefore  to  provide  a  quicker  response  to 
operational needs (such as setting up Joint Investigation Teams or JITs). 

Improving operational cooperation 

The financial programme "Prevention of and Fight against Crime" is a major tool for carrying 
out  exchange  programmes.  Furthermore,  the  programme  introduced  a  new  form  of 
cooperation based on larger, multi-annual projects with broader impact at EU level.  

In  particular,  in  2007  €  3.5  million  was  allocate d  to  law  enforcement  cooperation  to  set  up 
JITs and to support Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police (COSPOL). 
Initiatives to support cooperation with Europol had an € 800,000 budget. In 2008, the budget 
for implementation of the Prüm Treaty was €  3.8 million and for the fight against crime and 
supporting cooperation € 4 million. The same budget  also set aside € 4.6  million in support of 
law enforcement cooperation. In 2009, the Commission has earmarked € 40.6 million for co-
financing  transnational  and  national  projects  and  €  8  million  for  framework  partners  to 
enhance operational cooperation and cooperation with Europol. 

About  40  JITs  have  been  the  set  up  during  the  Hague  Programme.  Currently,  Europol  is 
associated to 3 JITs and took part to 5 JITs, now closed. Moreover, 8 "threat assessments" on 
different subjects (drugs, cigarettes and mineral oils, firearms, precursors, etc.) were delivered 
by customs administrations within the remit of the Customs Cooperation Working Party. 

Further work is needed to improve the use of JITs and the potential of existing bodies should 
be  tapped  more  fully.  Europol  and  Eurojust  should  be  more  clearly  involved  in  the 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
investigation phase of cross-border organised crime cases and in JITs. Joint customs, police 
and/or  judicial  operations  should  become  a  frequent  tool  of  practical  cooperation,  and  how 
JITs operate, in legal and operational terms, should  be evaluated to them an every-day tool in 
the cross-border fight against crime. This general assessment was also confirmed by a study 
conducted by the European Parliament in 2009197, which also stressed the need for Member 
States to make more extensive use of this instrument.  

The  Task  Force  of  EU  Police  Chiefs  was  established  in  1999  as  an  operational  liaison 
mechanism for European police forces to exchange, in cooperation with Europol, experiences, 
best  practices  and  information  on  cross-border  crime  trends,  thereby  improving  the 
organisation  of  police  operations.  Since  its  first  meeting,  45  items  have  been  put  on  the 
agenda  of  the  strategic  and/or  operational  meetings.  Following  these  discussions,  various 
initiatives were launched, which were then endorsed by the Council and led to the adoption of 
legal  acts,  the  establishment  of  experts  networks  and  to  the  opening  of  COSPOL  projects, 
some  of  which  registered  good  results.  The  COSPOL  project  on  illegal  immigration,  for 
example, was supported by the AWF CHECKPOINT, has been the basis for many operations, 
including the "Trufas" operation that led to the arrest of 65 people, and the "Pigeon" operation 
that led to the arrest of 21 people. The quasi-systematic alignment of Europol AWF and the 
Task  Force  of  EU  Police  Chiefs'  COSPOL  projects  gave  the  Task  Force  better  analytical 
support to coordinate operations and dismantle organised crime networks. Currently, the Task 
Force of EU Police Chiefs manages 7 COSPOL projects.  

The  alignment  effort  between  COSPOL  and  AWF  should  be  continued,  either  by  changing 
the action plan in support to this COSPOL project, or by changing the opening order of the 
corresponding AWF, or even by creating new AWFs (a AWF on organised crime making use 
of ICT technologies has been established in 2009). 

The minimum standards for the cross-border use of investigation techniques, mentioned in the 
Action Plan, were not drawn up because consultations with MS did not show any immediate 
interest in taking this project forward.  

III. 

Future challenges 

In  a  Europe  there  are  no  longer  any  internal  borders,  the  Commission  aims  to  prevent  and 
fight against all forms of cross-border crime. This objective is translated into measures to help 
Member States combating the threats to civil society more effectively.  

Since operational activities fall under Member States' responsibility and legal instruments in 
most  cases  already  exist,  the  role  of  the  Commission  will  mainly  consist  of  supporting  and 
catalysing  Member  States'  resources  and  initiatives  and  helping  to  build  their  capabilities, 
notably  by  establishing  networks  and  providing  financial  support  for  transnational  projects. 
The Commission will also monitor the implementation of the EC instruments, facilitate access 
to information and shelp increase cross-border cooperation. 

197 

EN 

European  Parliament,  "Implementation  of  the  European  Arrest  Warrant  and  the  Joint  Investigation 
Teams 
at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file=24333. 

available 

National 

level", 

2009, 

and 

EU 

at 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission should make full use of the security research agenda, and push for an ever 
more innovation in security applications and systems in a bid to understand the problems and 
how best to respond to them. These efforts should be made in close cooperation with both the 
private and public sectors. New technology has a key role to play. Police cooperation based 
on  new  technologies  is  the  cornerstone  for  successful  cooperation  among  Member  States. 
Efficient and effective use of technologies in all areas of justice, freedom and security policies 
should be at the heart of our approach to security, in combination with greater use of results of 
socio-economic research in the field. 

Developing Europol's role to provide intelligence-led law enforcement at European level is 
crucial.  

An  open  reflection  should  be  launched  on  the  overall  architecture  of  internal  security  to 
counter existing needs and threats. The scaling-up of threats and the development of European 
means of internal security highlight the need for better coordination and for more thought tobe 
put into this. 

As  regards  training,  extending  CEPOL  courses  to  specialized  middle  rank  police  officers 
could  further  spread  the  culture  of  cooperation  in  Europe.  Following  on  from  the  Erasmus 
programme for university students, a situation might also be envisaged whereby every police 
officer  who  is  a  candidate  for  an  international  cooperation  position  would  have  to  spend  a 
period in a law enforcement department of another Member State. Following the evaluation of 
CEPOL's performance to be carried out by 2011, it could be envisaged the regrouping of all 
police and customs' training activities at European level within Europol.  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
4.4.  Management of crises within the EU with cross-border effects  

I. 

Objectives  

The  Hague  Programme  emphasised  the  importance  of  effective  management  of  crises  with 
cross-border  effects  on  citizens,  critical  infrastructure  and  public  order  and  security.  The 
Programme  specifically  addressed  the  issue  of  strengthening  civil  protection  and  critical 
infrastructure  and  called  for  the  establishment  of  integrated  and  coordinated  EU  crisis-
management arrangements. 

II. 

Main developments  

Critical infrastructure protection 

Implementation  of  the  Hague  Programme  included  the  establishment  of  the  European 
Programme  for  Critical  Infrastructure  Protection  (EPCIP)198,  which  provided  a  horizontal 
platform  for  critical  infrastructure  protection  activities  in  the  European  Union.  The  EPCIP 
policy  package  included  a  number  of  interlinking  initiatives  aiming  at  enhancing  the 
protection of critical infrastructure in the EU, in particular measures designed to facilitate the 
implementation  of  EPCIP,  including  an  EPCIP  Action  Plan;  the  Critical  Infrastructure 
Warning  Information  Network  (CIWIN);  the  use  of  CIP  expert  groups  at  EU  level;  CIP 
information-sharing  processes  and  the  identification  and  analysis  of  interdependencies;  the 
identification  and  designation  of  European  Critical  Infrastructure  and  the  assessment  of  the 
need to improve protection of such infrastructure (addressed in detail by way of a proposed 
Directive);  optional  support  for  Member  States  concerning  National  Critical  Infrastructures 
(NCI); contingency planning; and an external dimension. 

The process of identifying and designating European Critical Infrastructure in specific sectors 
was  put  forward  in  a  2006  proposal  for  a  directive  on  the  identification  and  designation  of 
European  Critical  Infrastructure199,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Council  in  2008200.  This 
directive  focuses  in  the  first  phase  on  two  key  sectors:  energy  and  transport.  Other  sectors 
(including  the  ICT  and  financial  sectors)  may  be  included  in  the  future,  following  an 
assessment of the impact of the directive.  

The first evaluation on threats, risks and vulnerabilities encountered in each European Critical 
Infrastructure  sector  will  be  done  in  2010-2012.  It  will  show  whether  other  measures  are 
needed at the EU level. Work has also advanced on the establishment of the CIWIN system, 
which  will  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  concerning  EU  trans-boundary  critical 
infrastructures.  A  proposal  for  a  decision  establishing  CIWIN  was  adopted  by  the 
Commission in 2008201.  

198 
199 
200 

201 

COM(2006) 786 final. 
COM(2006) 787 final. 
Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European 
critical  infrastructures  and  the  assessment  of  the  need  to  improve  their  protection,  OJ  L  345, 
23.12.2008, p. 75. 
COM(2008) 676 final. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Good progress was recorded in most areas of work of the EPCIP and the CIP Expert groups 
started  their  work.  Two  new  expert  groups  are  planned  to  be  created  in  2009,  which  will 
establish criteria for the identification of critical infrastructures in the financial and chemical 
sectors.  The  first  results  of  the  work  of  the  three  expert  groups  are  expected  by  the  end  of 
2009.  

Assessing  the  impact  of  a  policy  designed  to  increase  the  resilience  and  the  protection  of 
infrastructure is clearly very difficult. It will never be possible to completely eliminate the risk 
of  serious  disruptions  to  services  provided  by  infrastructures.  Nevertheless,  the  EPCIP  has 
taken  a  significant  step  towards  minimising  the  risk  of  such  disruptions  and  adverse  cross-
border effects.  

It is still too early to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the success of EPCIP. It should 
be  noted,  however,  that  the  process  of  developing  EPCIP  already  produced  several  positive 
results. The broad consultations undertaken among all stakeholders resulted in a higher level 
of  awareness  of  critical  infrastructure  protection  issues.  Meetings  of  national  CIP  Contact 
Points upped the exchange of information between Member States. The associated financial 
programme  provided  considerable  funding  for  CIP-related  activities, 
the 
identification  of  good  practices  that  could  be  shared  among  Member  States.  Finally, 
discussion on the EPCIP helped to establish national CIP strategies in a number of Member 
States.  Implementation  of  the  directive  on  European  Critical  Infrastructure  will  add  to  this 
positive process. 

including 

the  financial  programmes, 

the  "Prevention,  Preparedness  and  Consequence 
Among 
Management  of  Terrorism  and  other  Security  related  Risks"  specific  financial  programme 
provides  financial  support  for  critical  infrastructure  protection.  Projects  under  the  2007 
Annual  Programme  are  currently  ongoing,  and  the  first  results  should  be  available  in  2009. 
The Commission has also contracted 4 studies under the 2007 Work programme, which will 
help to develop this policy field further (critical dependencies of energy, finance and transport 
on  ICT  infrastructure;  risk  governance  of  European  critical  infrastructure  in  the  ICT  and 
energy sector; feasibility study on the European network of Secure test Centres for Reliable 
ICT  –  Controlled  Critical  Energy  Infrastructures  (SCADA);  stocktaking  of  existing  Critical 
Infrastructures Protection activities). The first results of the studies will be available in 2009.  

Civil protection  

The  Community  Civil  Protection  Mechanism202  has  developed  into  a  genuine  multi-threat 
instrument  for  helping  participating  States  to  respond  to  major  disasters,  and  to  prepare  for 
them.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  has  launched  activities  designed  to  integrate  aspects  of 
disaster prevention into an overall approach to disaster management. 

Some 20 requests for assistance are received yearly by the Commission and the Mechanism is 
tasked with coordinating and facilitating the participating States' response to natural and man-
made  disasters  (including  acts  of  terrorism)  both  within  the  EU  and  world-wide.  The  EU's 
collective  preparedness  is  being  enhanced  by  an  extensive  programme  comprising  training 

202 

The  Council  Decision  2007/779/EC,  Euratom  of  8  November  2007  establishing  a  Community  Civil 
Protection  Mechanism  (recast),  OJ  L 314, 1.12.2007,  p.  9, brings  together 30 participating  States  (27 
EU Member States and EEA countries). 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
courses, exchange of experts, simulation exercises and cooperation projects financed through 
the Civil Protection Financial Instrument203 adopted in 2007.  

As called for by the European Council204 and the European Parliament in 2005205, measures 
have been taken to develop a rapid response capability, notably by: 

•  Creating civil protection modules. Standards have been developed for these task-
oriented, autonomous, interoperable and rapidly deployable assets of one or more 
Participating  States206.  Over  80  have  been  registered  covering  Chemical, 
Biological,  Radiological,  Nuclear  (CBRN)  detection  and  sampling,  search  and 
rescue  in  CBRN  conditions,  pumping  and  purification  of  water,  aerial  fire 
fighting,  urban  search  and  rescue,  medical  assistance 
including  medical 
evacuation and emergency shelter. 

•  Setting  up  the  Common  Emergency  Communication  and  Information  System 
(CECIS),  to  make  for  secure  exchanges  of  information  with  the  Participating 
States. 

•  Developing  a  logistical  support  role  for  the  Monitoring  and  Information  Centre 
(MIC) to help Participating States to access transport resources of other States and 
on the commercial market. 

The new Mechanism's legal basis makes explicit reference to responding to terrorism threats, 
including CBRN, which has allowed the Commission to develop a number of activities in the 
areas of training, large-scale exercises and specialised exchange of experts. In autumn 2008, it 
funded  a  specific  real-scale  exercise  on  CBRN  involving  several  participating  States.  The 
Commission  also  conducted  an  analysis  of  data  provided  by  the  participating  States 
concerning the assistance that could be made available in the participating States in the event 
of a terrorist attack. 

The Mechanism currently faces four main challenges: enhancing the availability of assistance, 
moving  to  contingency  planning,  improving  the  effectiveness  of  Europe's  response  and 
ensuring an integrated approach to disaster management: 

The  Council  has  called  on  the  Member  States  to  commit  themselves  to  enhancing  the 
availability of their civil protection modules and other intervention capabilities. Furthermore, 
projects  launched  under  the  Preparatory  Action  on  a  rapid  response  capability  for  testing 
various  types  of  arrangements  for  enhancing  the  availability  of  response  resources  should 
allow the Commission to identify directions for future action in this area. 

203 

204 

205 

206 

Council  Decision  2007/162/EC,  Euratom  of  5  March  2007  establishing  a  Civil  Protection  Financial 
Instrument, OJ L 71, 10.3.2007, p. 9. 
Council document 10255/1/05 rev 1, Presidency Conclusions of the 16-17 June 2005 Brussels European 
Council. 
European  Parliament  document  RSP/2005/2500,  "Resolution  on  the  recent  tsunami  disaster  in  the 
Indian Ocean and Union's aid for victims". 
Commission  Decision  2008/73/EC, Euratom  of  20  December  2007  amending  Decision  2004/277/EC, 
Euratom  as  regards  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Council  Decision  2007/779/EC,  Euratom 
establishing a Community civil protection, OJ L 20, 24.1.2008, p. 23. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Contingency  planning  for  disasters  needs  to  be  improved.  The  Commission's  ongoing  work 
on  scenarios  for  major  disasters  should  provide  a  basis  for  moving  to  genuine  contingency 
planning. 

The  effectiveness  of  Europe's  civil  protection  response  needs  to  be  constantly  improved, 
notably  by  enhancing  the  interoperability  of  modules  through  training,  exercises  and  use  of 
standard operating procedures. Developing assessment and coordination teams to the sites of 
disasters needs to be speeded up, and the MIC needs to be upgraded into a genuine operations 
centre with a proactive profile. 

Finally,  an  integrated  approach  to  disaster  management  needs  to  be  established  by  building 
links between the Community's various tools and programmes. 

Integrated and coordinated EU crisis-management arrangements  

In response to the crisis-management objectives set out in the Hague Programme, the Council 
approved  Emergency  and  Crisis  Coordination  Arrangements  in  Brussels  (CCA)207.  Without 
prejudice  to  existing  crisis  management  systems  (national,  EU  and  international),  the  CCA 
take a cross-pillar approach to crisis management and are relevant both to external crises and 
to crises within the EU. They will provide Member States' Permanent Representations with a 
platform  to  exchange  information  and  support  political  coordination  during  severe 
emergencies that have such wide-ranging impact or political significance that they require an 
exceptional  response  at  EU  level.  The  crisis  coordination  arrangements  have  been  regularly 
tested  by  way  of  exercises  and  are  continually  being  improved  in  a  bid  to  respond  more 
rapidly and more effectively to evolving threats. 

The  Commission  added  to  its  own  crisis  management  procedures  and  system  by  setting-up  
ARGUS208, which allows the Commission to launch a robust response to emergencies and to 
play a fully part in CCA activities. The ARGUS system involves a quick consultation process 
for  major  crises.  Following  the  adoption  of  the  Communication  on  Reinforcing  the  Union's 
Disaster  Response  Capacity209,  the  Commission  is  trying  to  generate  synergy  between 
existing instruments. 

The procedures and the adequacy of the CCA have been regularly tested and refined though 
lessons  leaned  process.  The  mechanics  of  it  (technical  aspects,  consultation  process, 
information  flow,  format  of  the  meeting)  were shown to work well. However, the  exercises 
highlighted the need to further evaluate the arrangements, and especially to clarify the roles of 
the CCA groups and non-affected Member States to make for enhanced strategic thinking and 
political advice. 

A  Situation  Map  has  been  proposed  to  facilitate  the  work  of  the  Council  Presidency  when 
drawing  up  proposals  for  action.  It  rapidly  identifies  the  relevant  sectors,  instruments  and 
actors for possible actions at EU level and pinpoints actions that requires a political impetus.  

207 
208 
209 

Council document 16642/06. 
COM(2005) 662 final. 
COM(2008) 130 final. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
III. 

Future challenges 

Work on Critical Infrastructure Protection should build on the achievements of the Hague 
Programme and on the first evaluation of threats, risks and vulnerabilities encountered in each 
European  Critical  Infrastructure  protection  section  (2010-2012).  This  will  lead  to  a  detailed 
examination of whether further measures at the EU level are necessary.  

Most of the work within the EPCIP has concentrated so far on internal EU issues. The future 
will require a greater commitment to the external dimension of CIP, as the geographical and 
cross-sector interdependencies extend beyond the borders of the EU. 

Despite  marked  progress,  continued  effort  will  be  needed  to  implement  the  EPCIP  in  its 
entirety,  and  thus  to  address  all  the  relevant  sectors  of  economic  activity  and  to  eliminate 
potential weak links. 

The  Commission's  objective  for  the  period  2010-2014  in  the  field  of  civil  protection  is  to 
ensure that the Mechanism is increasingly effective in helping participating States to prepare 
for  and  respond  to  large-scale  disasters,  including  a  Chemical,  Biological,  Radiological, 
Nuclear  (CBRN)  terrorist  attack.  This  should  be  part  of  an  integrated  approach  to  disaster 
management that ties disaster prevention and effective coordination to other Community tools 
and policies.  

The  Commission  will  continue  to  help  participating  States  to  organise  their  civil  protection 
assets  more  efficiently,  including  civil  protection  modules,  with  a  view  to  enhancing  the 
availability  of  assistance  and  reducing  obstacles  to  its  delivery.  Where  necessary,  the 
Mechanism should complement the resources available for deployment in major disasters and 
to provide any logistical support that may be needed. 

The  Commission  will  improve  its  operational  contribution  by  increasing  the  analytical, 
assessment  and  planning  capacities  of  the  MIC  and  by  reinforcing  its  assessment  and 
coordination teams at the sites of disaster. In this context, the Commission will look into the 
possibile added value of innovative models for organising Europe's civil protection response 
as an expression of European solidarity. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
4.5. 

 Organised crime, corruption and crime prevention 

I. 

Objectives  

The  Hague  Programme  stressed  the  importance  of  developing  and  implementing  a  strategic 
concept for tackling organised crime. With this in mind, a range of political, legislative and 
operational  policies  have  been  identified  and  defined  for  the  years  to  come.  The  Hague 
programme  also  initiated  a  series  of  initiatives  resulting  in  closer  cooperation  both  with 
Europol  and  Eurojust  and  with  third  countries  and  other  international  organisations,  and  in 
better  information  access  and  sharing  in  general.  One  of  the  areas  of  special  focus  was 
acquiring better know-how and understanding of the dynamics of various forms of organised 
crime, some of which are developing at high speed, in line with technological developments. 
Finally, acknowledging that an effective organised crime policy cannot be based exclusively 
on strengthening tools and stepping up international cooperation, crime prevention continued 
to be the focus of attention.  

II. 

Main developments  

Fighting cyber crime 

In 2007, the Commission presented a  general policy on the fight against cyber crime210. This 
was  used  in  2007  and  2008  to  increase  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  agencies  and 
private  sector.  A  Commission-led  consultation  of  experts  and  stakeholders  from  both  the 
public and the private sector resulted in EU recommendations on public-private cooperation 
in  the  fight  against  cyber  crime211.  Finally,  the  Council  conclusions  of  November  2008212 
included an overall strategy on cyber crime. 

European coordination and cooperation between high-tech crime units in the Member States 
was actively supported by the Commission through  the organisation of  expert meetings and 
the  development  of  the  Council  of  Europe  and  G  8  network  of  contact  points.  The  AGIS 
programme  was  used  to  support  several  cyber  crime  training  programmes,  including  an  EU 
cyber crime training curriculum. 

As  criminals  can  not  only  attack  information  systems  or  commit  crimes  from  one  Member 
State to another, but can easily do so from outside the EU's jurisdiction, relations with third 
countries  have  also  been  strengthened  in  the  context  of  anti-cyber  crime  activities.  The 
Commission has taken part in international forums such as the Council of Europe and the G8 
Roma/Lyon  High  Tech  Crime  subgroup.  Meetings  with  Russian  cyber  crime  experts  were 
organised in 2007 and 2009 and US and Ukrainian experts participated in the expert meetings 
organised by the Commission.  

The financial programme "Prevention of and fight against crime" was largely implemented in 
this area, in particular in support of projects designed to enhance cooperation between all EU 
stakeholders against cyber crime.  

210 
211 

212 

COM(2007) 267 final. 
Press release IP/08/1429; Council conclusions of 27 November 2008 on a concerted work strategy and 
practical measures against cybercrime, OJ C 62, 17.3.2009, p. 16. 
Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 39, adopting Council conclusions 15569/08. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Combating trafficking in human beings, child exploitation and child pornography  

Trafficking  is  considered  one  of  the  most  serious  crimes  world-wide,  a  gross  violation  of 
human  rights  and  a  modern  form  of  slavery.  Unfortunately,  it  is  an  extremely  profitable 
business  for  organised  crime.  In  conformity  with  the  internationally  agreed  legal  definition, 
trafficking consists of the recruitment, transfer or receipt of persons, carried out with coercive, 
deceptive  or  abusive  means,  for  the  purpose  of  exploitation  including  sexual  or  labour 
exploitation,  forced  labour,  domestic  servitude  or  other  forms  of  exploitation.  Women  and 
children  seem  to  be  the  most  affected,  but  cases  of  trafficking  involving  young  men, 
especially  for  the  purpose  of  labour  exploitation,  are  increasingly  being  reported.  Therefore 
trafficking is considered a priority within EU policy and needs a robust response213. 

The  Communication  "Fighting  trafficking  in  human  beings:  an  integrated  approach  and 
proposals for an action plan"214 formed the basis for the "EU Plan on best practices, standards 
and  procedures  for  combating  and  preventing  trafficking  in  human  beings",  which  was 
endorsed by the Council in 2005215. Following the 2008 report on the implementation of the 
Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings216, a detailed study of national 
measures has been undertaken, making it possible to identify the scope for further legislative 
and non-legislative actions (i.e. regarding the facilitation of public-private cooperation and the 
involvement  of  Europol).  Both  the  Communication  and  the  report  provided  the  basis  for  an 
impact  assessment  of  the  recently  adopted  Commission  proposal217  amending  the  2002 
Framework Decision on combating trafficking of human beings218. 

The first EU Anti-trafficking day was held on 18 October 2007. This has now been confirmed 
as a major annual event to raise awareness of the problems that human trafficking poses. The 
first anti-trafficking day also saw the adoption of the recommendations on the identification of 
and  referral  to  services  of  the  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  in  which  further 
measures to underpin the legal framework for preventing and combating trafficking in human 
organs, tissues and cells are still being looked into, partly because it is particularly difficult to 
find evidence concerning this problem.  

The Commission established a Group of Experts on trafficking in human beings219 in 2007. Its 
goal as to take account of the changes brought about by enlargement, and the need to provide 
specific expertise, especially in the field of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. 
Trafficking is a priority in the 2007 and 2008 financial programmes "Prevention of and fight 
against  crime"  and  in  the  Thematic  Programme  on  Migration  and  Asylum.  Nine  projects 
directly  related  to  trafficking  in  human  beings  have  been  selected  for  funding  under  the 

213 

214 
215 
216 
217 
218 

219 

Patrick  Belser,  Michaelle  De  Cock,  Fahrad  Mehran,  "Minimum  Estimate  of  Forced  Labour  in  the 
World", ILO, Geneva, April 2005. 
COM(2005) 514 final. 
OJ C 311, 9.12.2005, p. 1. 
COM(2008) 657 final. 
COM(2009) 136 final. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2002/629/JHA  of  19  July  2002  on  combating  trafficking  in  human 
beings, OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 1. 
Commission Decision 2007/675/EC of 17 October 2007 setting up the Group of Experts on Trafficking 
in Human Beings, OJ L 277, 20.10.2007, p. 29 and Commission Decision 2008/604/EC of 22 July 2008 
on the appointment of members of the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings, OJ L 194, 
23.7.2008, p. 12. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
programme calls for proposals in 2007 and 2008, and another three awarded projects concern 
connected issues. The total amount of allocated funds was around € 3 million.  

A  Council  Framework  Decision  against  sexual  exploitation  and  child  pornography220  was 
adopted in 2004. It introduced a minimum of approximation of Member States’ legislation to 
criminalise the most serious forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation, to extend domestic 
jurisdiction and to provide for a minimum of assistance to victims.  

The  Commission  adopted  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision  in 
2007221,  which  highlighted  that  there  was  still  a  need  for  more  action  in  certain  areas,  in 
particular in IT-related areas such as ‘grooming’ through the Internet, and for new methods to 
detect these crimes. However, it also acknowledged that, while information from the Member 
States was incomplete, the requirements set had generally been met. The Commission stressed 
the importance of increasing social protection and respecting the rights of child victims, and 
suggested  updating  the  Framework  Decision,  in  particular  regarding  offences  committed 
using IT. 

However,  while  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  sexual  abuse  and  exploitation  of  children  is  a 
serious problem, there are no and reliable statistics on the nature of the phenomenon and on 
the  numbers  of  children  involved,  because  of  differences  in  national  definitions  of  various 
child sexual abuse and exploitation offences, very significant underreporting by victims, and 
inadequate data collection mechanisms. Studies suggest that a significant minority of children 
in  Europe,  between  10%  and  20%  as  an  informed  scientific  estimate,  will  be  sexually 
assaulted  during  their  childhood222.  Research  also  suggests  that  this  phenomenon  is  not 
decreasing over time, that child victims portrayed in pornography are getting younger, and the 
that images are becoming increasingly graphic and violent223. 

In  response  to  this  problem,  the  Commission  presented  a  proposal  in  early  2009  for  a  new 
Framework  Decision  on  combating  the  sexual  abuse  and  sexual  exploitation  of  children224, 
updating the 2004 Framework Decision on this matter. 

Fight against corruption 

Corruption, traditionally seen as individual behaviour related to carrying out routine tasks in 
public  affairs  (awarding  of  contracts,  awarding  of  grants,  administration  of  public  accounts, 
decision-making  by  agencies  responsible  for  exercising  executive  power,  etc.),  has  changed 
over  time.  Today,  corruption  is  more  widespread,  its  various  components,  while  hiding  the 
relationships  that  bind  them  together,  encompass  increasingly  large  areas,  such  as  the 
complex administration of the State, and especially of corporate activities that go well beyond 
national borders.  

220 

221 
222 
223 

224 

Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation 
of children and child pornography, OJ L 13, 20.1.2004, p.44. 
COM(2007) 716 final. 
May-Chahal, C., and Herczog, M., "Child sexual abuse in Europe", 2003. 
International  Centre  for  Missing  and  Exploited  Children,  "Child  Pornography:  Model  legislation  and 
global review", 2007. 
COM(2009) 135 final. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There is a broad consensus that corruption undermines democracy and good governance, the 
trust  in  State  structures  and  the  overall  legitimacy  of  government.  In  an  economic  setting, 
corruption creates distortions and inefficiency, increasing the cost for all economic subjects. 
According  to  estimates  of  the  World  Bank,  the  "global  corruption  industry"  costs  about  1 
trillion US dollars per year225 and these figures only take account of the bribery – or active – 
aspects of corruption. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the actual costs are even 
higher226. Corruption is not a victimless crime: costs are borne by every citizen.  

Estimates  made  by  law  enforcement  authorities  and  researchers  suggest  that  90%  of 
corruption offences remain undetected, while only 10% of all cases are treated by the criminal 
justice  systems.  Corruption  levels  in  the  EU  are  difficult  to  measure,  especially  because 
comparable  statistics  in  all  the  EU  Member  States  do  not  exist.  However,  according  to  a 
recent Special  Eurobarometer  survey227, on average three out  of four  EU  citizens  agree  that 
corruption is a major problem in their country (75%).  

The Commission's 2007 implementation report on the Framework Decision on corruption in 
the private sector228, which requires Member States to make active and passive corruption in 
the private sector a criminal offence, found that most Member States have not yet criminalised 
all  circumstances  in  which  corruption  might  occur  in  the  private  sector.  The  Commission 
plans in due course to carry out a second assessment of the implementation of this instrument. 

Following  a  Council  Decision  in  2008229,  the  European  Community  ratified  the  UN 
Convention against corruption (UNCAC), the first comprehensive piece of legislation having 
a global scope. The Commission is encouraging Member States that have not yet done so to 
ratify the UNCAC. 

In 2009, the network of contact points against corruption230 should start operating. It links the 
operational  expertise  of  Member  States  authorities  and  agencies  to  prevent  and  combat 
corruption and to improve coordination in the field. The Commission, Europol and Eurojust 
are  part  of  the  network,  which  builds  on  previous  work  of  the  European  Partners  Against 
Corruption  (EPAC).  Furthermore,  the  Commission  ordered  a  scientific  study  into  the  links 
between  organised  crime  and  corruption  in  2008.  The  results  are  expected  in  autumn  2009. 
Finally,  research  projects  have  been  funded  under  the  6th  and  7th  Research  Framework 
Programme that also include the cultural aspects of corruption and to provide reliable cross-
country comparisons. 

Fighting financial crimes 

225 

226 
227 
228 
229 

230 

Available at:  
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20190295~menuPK:34457~p
agePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html. 
Available at: http://www.un.org/events/10thcongress/2088b.htm. 
Special Eurobarometer 291, "The attitudes of Europeans towards corruption". 
COM(2007) 328 final. 
Council  Decision  2008/801/EC  of  25 September  2008  on  the  conclusion,  on  behalf  of  the  European 
Community, of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, OJ L 287, 29.10.2008, p. 1. 
Council Decision 2008/852/JHA of 24 October 2008 on a contact-point network against corruption, OJ 
L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 38. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Communication  on  the  prevention  of  and  fight  against  organised  crime  in  the  financial 
sector231 states that financial investigations are a useful means of understanding the activities 
and behaviour of organised crime networks. Indeed, financial investigations can play a pivotal 
role  in  the  strategy  to  dismantle  organised  crime.  In  the  Communication  "Developing  a 
strategic concept on tackling organised crime"232, the Commission calls for the spreading of 
investigation techniques and legal tools to rapidly identify illicit money transfers. 

The 2008 Revised Strategy on Terrorist Financing233 provides that Member States should give 
priority  to  financial  investigations  and  to  financial  criminal  analysis  in  the  fight  against 
terrorism. Finally, in a 2008 Communication234 the Commission cites financial investigation, 
financial  criminal  analysis  and  better  training  as  some  of  the  priorities  in  the  fight  against 
crime.  

In  an  effort  to  promote  financial  investigation,  financial  criminal  analysis235  and  financial 
intelligence,  the  Commission  joined  forces  with  Europol  and  national  experts,  sent 
questionnaires  to  the  Member  States,  and  defined  the  knowledge  financial  investigators 
should have and thir level of expertise.  

The  Commission  encouraged  Member  States  police  academies,  including  partnerships  with 
universities, to establish specific training programmes with financial support from AGIS and 
the ''Prevention and fight against crime" programme. The Commission also finances training 
programmes  to  establish  common  training  standards  on  the  basis  of  8  themes  identified  by 
Excellence Centres, and to implement certification schemes for financial investigators.  

In the fight against money laundering, the Commission facilitates cooperation and promotes 
the exchange of information between the Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of the Member 
States through the informal EU FIU Platform and the FIU-NET system.  

The  EU  FIU  Platform  is  an  informal  forum  for  discussion  and  exchange  of  best  practices 
between  FIUs  supported  by  the  Commission.  The  Platform  has  so  far  produced  reports  on 
feedback  on  money  laundering  and  terrorist  financing  cases  and  typologies  and  on 
confidentiality and data protection in the activity of FIUs236. Future reports should address the 
content of suspicious transactions and international cooperation.  

FIU-NET  is  a  secure  communication  channel  for  the  exchange  of  operational  information 
between EU FIUs managed by the FIU-NET Bureau, which is hosted within the Ministry of 
Justice  of  the  Netherlands.  17  Member  States  are  connected  (or  are  in  the  process  of  being 
connected)  to  the  system  and  use  of  the  system  is  steadily  increasing.  A  project  to  further 
improve  the  FIU-NET  system  is  currently  ongoing  with  the  financial  support  of  the 
programme on "prevention of and fight against crime".  

231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 

COM(2004) 262 final. 
COM(2005) 232 final. 
Council document 11778/1/08. 
COM(2008) 766 final. 
The Commission funded several projects on improving these techniques between 2002 and 2005. 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/financial-crime/index_en.htm#fiu-platform. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission issued a report in 2007 on the implementation of Council Decision on the 
exchange of information and cooperation between FIUs237. The report concluded that Member 
States can be largely considered to be legally compliant with most of the key requirements of 
the decision, but that more needs to be done in terms of operational cooperation. The report 
also underlined the lack of legal clarity on how data protection rules may affect the exchange 
of  information  between  EU  FIUs.  It  highlighted  the  need  for  possible  complementary 
measures,  in  particular  operational  guidelines.  Many  administrative  FIUs  cannot  exchange 
police  information  or  can  provide  such  information  only  after  a  long  delay.  Some  law 
enforcement  FIUs  might  not  be  able  to  provide  certain  crucial  information  from  their 
databases to administrative entities. There is no common understanding of what information is 
accessible to FIUs and what "relevant information" is to be exchanged.  

Confiscation and asset recovery 

The  2007  Council  Decision  on  cooperation  between  Asset  Recovery  Offices  (AROs)238 
requires Member States to set up or designate national AROs, which would then promote the 
fastest  possible  EU-wide  tracing  of  assets  derived  from  crime.  Some  countries  still  need  to 
notify the Commission of their designated authorities. At present 20 Member States have set 
up AROs239. These offices differ widely in structure, powers and practices.  

In 2007 the Commission issued a first report reviewing Member States' implementation of the 
Framework  Decision  on  extended  confiscation240.  The  report  shows  that  most  EU  Member 
States have been slow to putting in place measures to allow more widespread confiscation of 
the proceeds of crime. 

In  2008,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the  proceeds  of  organised  crime241, 
which  proposes  ten  strategic  priorities  to  support  the  fight  against  organised  crime  by 
enhancing  confiscation  and  asset  recovery.  It  reviews  existing  EU  legislation  and  its 
implementation  and  calls  for  it  to  be  recast  in  a  bid  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of 
confiscation.  However,  on  the  advice  from  experts,  practitioners  and  academics,  the 
Commission  did  not  propose  new  legislation  at  this  stage,  but  preferred  to  discuss  need  for 
new legislation and its possible content with the Member States.  

The Commission also conducted a study in 2007-2008 analysing Member States' practices in 
confiscation242, focusing in particular on what has proven to be effective at national level with 
a view to promoting and exchanging of best practices. The study identified several obstacles, 
such  as  conflicting  legal  traditions,  difficulties  in  securing  and  maintaining  assets,  lack  of 

237 
238 

239 

240 
241 
242 

COM(2007) 827 final. 
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery 
Offices  of  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of  tracing  and  identification  of  proceeds  from,  or  other 
property related to, crime, OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 103. 
AROs have been established or designated in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. 
COM(2007) 805 final. 
COM(2008) 766 final. 
Matrix,  "Assessing  the  effectiveness  of  EU  Member  States'  practices  in  the  identification,  tracing, 
freezing and confiscation of criminal assets", not yet published. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
resources and training, limited cross-agency contacts and a lack of statistical data. It will be 
used as a basis for further initiatives.  

Extensive use of Community funding programmes has been made in this area. The activities 
of the CARIN Network243 in particular have been regularly funded under AGIS and ISEC. A 
high-level  pan-European  conference  funded  under  ISEC  on  establishing  Asset  Recovery 
Offices in the EU Member States took place in March 2008244. Relations with third countries 
have also been extended. The Commission participates in the Asset Recovery Working Group 
established under the UN Convention on Corruption (UNCAC), which provides for extensive 
international  cooperation on the confiscation, disposal and return of assets acquired through 
corruption. 

Some  Member  States  do  not  regularly  collect  statistics  on  the  number  of  freezing  and 
confiscation  procedures  initiated,  the  orders  issued  and  the  assets  recovered.  However,  at 
present  the  overall  number  of  confiscation  cases  in  the  EU  is  relatively  limited  and  the 
amounts  recovered  from  organised  crime  are  modest,  especially  if  compared  with  the 
estimated revenues of organised criminal groups245.  

There is evidence that the proceeds of crime are increasingly acquired in countries other than 
those  where  a  criminal  organisation  normally  operates  or  where  a  criminal  conviction  takes 
place. This will make the identification of the proceeds of crime and their seizure all the more 
difficult.  

Europol  and  Eurojust  are  increasingly  assisting  financial  investigators  and  magistrates  in 
cross-border cases. In 2007, Europol supported 133 investigations to trace criminal proceeds. 
In  2007,  30  out  of  over  1000  cases  dealt  with  by  Eurojust  related  to  asset  freezing  and 
confiscation.  Close  cooperation  is  needed  not  only  within  the  EU,  but  also  with  third 
countries.  However,  international  cooperation  is  not  always  satisfactory  due  to  the  varying 
degrees of willingness to cooperate. 

Fight against counterfeiting 

Counterfeiting and piracy involve organised criminal activities that can have direct effect on 
consumers. The Internet has fostered e-commerce across the globe. However, it is also being 
used  by  criminals  as  an  international  market  for  the  production,  sale  and  distribution  of 
pirated and counterfeit goods that are easily available to the consumer and often dangerous. 
Different criminal penalties among Member States create an unbalanced enforcement regime 
within  the  internal  market  and  slow  down  cross-border  police  cooperation.  In  addition, 
financial  malevolencies  attached  to  counterfeiting  and  piracy  can  also  aggravate  the  current 
financial crisis.  

243 

244 
245 

CARIN  includes  experts  from  52  countries,  including  26  EU  Member  States.  Its  objectives  are  the 
exchange of best practices and the improvement of inter-agency cooperation in cross-border matters. Its 
Secretariat is held by Europol.  
Organised by Europol and the Austrian and Belgian governments. 
As  shown  by  the  statistics  on  confiscation  included  in  the  mutual  evaluation  reports  on  money 
laundering  published  by  the  FATF  or  the  Council  of  Europe  Moneyval  Committee.  In  a  recent  study 
carried out in one Member State, the revenues of organised crime were put at around € 130 billion only 
in that country. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Hague package referred to the legislative package (directive and framework decision) 246 
on  counterfeiting.  In  2006,  this  package  was  translated  into  an  amended  proposal  for  a 
Directive  on  criminal  measures  aimed  at  ensuring  the  enforcement  of  intellectual  property 
rights247.  During  the  first  reading,  the  proposed  directive  to  strengthen  the  criminal  law 
framework to combat intellectual property offences was amended by the European Parliament 
and  transmitted  to  the  Council.  Discussion  continues  between  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the Commission and the private sector. 

The proposed amendment will help to adapt the EU instrument to the most recent legal and 
international  developments,  and  also  to  the  evolution  of  the  threat  of  organised  crime,  in 
particular to public health and citizens' security. To date, only the civil248 and the customs249 
dimensions  of  the  issue  have  been  the  subject  of  Community  harmonisation.  Counterfeiting 
appears  in  Europol's  and  Eurojust's  mandate  and  in  certain  legal  instruments,  such  as  the 
European Arrest Warrant, seizure of property or mutual recognition of financial sanctions. 

In  2008,  the  Council  adopted  a  resolution250  that  mentioned  the  above-mentioned  amended 
proposal  of  the  directive  on  criminal  measures  aimed  at  ensuring  the  enforcement  of 
intellectual  property  rights.  This  resolution  calls  for  a  European  Counterfeiting  and  Piracy 
Observatory  to  be  set  up,  for  action  to  be  taken  to  raise  awareness,  for  coordination  and 
evaluation  of  this  phenomenon  to  promote  among  institutions  involved  in  it  and  for  the 
effectiveness of the legal framework enforcing intellectual property right to be appraised. The 
resolution welcomed the work on a multi-annual anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA), 
which includes a criminal enforcement. 

Free  trade  agreements  being  negotiated with thirds countries  also include a criminal  section 
concerning actual implementation of the provisions on counterfeiting. The Commission plays 
an active part in the Council of Europe's drafting of the Convention on criminal proceedings 
on  pharmaceutical  products  counterfeiting.  Interpol  and  the  WHO  coordinate  the  IMPACT 
working  group  with  the  purpose  of  building  up  international  strategic  and  operational 
cooperation. This situation reinforces the necessity for harmonised criminal measures. 

Crime prevention  

Although  not  expressly  targeting  crime  prevention,  many  of  the  EU's  policies  contribute  to 
crime prevention by promoting economic and social cohesion, growth and employment and a 
transparent  economic  environment.  Objectives  in  the  area  of  justice,  freedom  and  security 
also  include  cooperation  and  the  development  of  instruments  and  mechanisms  to  reduce 
opportunities for criminal activities, and thus to make crime more difficult and riskier and of 
reduce criminals' profits. Although much has been achieved, further efforts are needed. 

246 
247 
248 

249 

250 

COM(2005) 276 final. 
COM(2006) 168 final. 
Directive  2004/48/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on  the 
enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1383/2003  of  22  July  2003  concerning  customs  action  against  goods 
suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods 
found to have infringed such rights, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 7. 
2008/C 253/01, OJ C 253, 4.10.2008, p. 1. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) was established by the Council in 2001 
to promote and support crime prevention initiatives at local, national and European level. An 
external  evaluation  launched  in  2008  to  assess  its  effectiveness  concluded  that  the  EUCPN 
played  a  positive  role  in  raising  the  profile  of  crime  prevention  and  facilitating  networking 
between  Member  States.  A  number  of  the  Network's  initiatives,  such  as  the  Best  Practice 
Conferences,  the  European  Crime  Prevention  Award  and  a  database  on  projects  and  other 
local  and  national  approaches  on  crime  prevention,  contributed  to  sharing  information  and 
expertise among practitioners, researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders. Given that 
the  potential  of  the  EUCPN  is  far  from  being  realised,  there  is  a  need  for  it  to  be  further 
expanded with a renewed political approach and organisational improvements.  

The website of the EUCPN has become an effective tool for providing information, both to 
practitioners  and  the  general  public,  on  strategic  and  operational  developments  in  the  field. 
Good progress has also been achieved as regards the development of a common methodology 
to  prepare,  implement  and  evaluate  specific  crime  prevention  projects.  The  inventory  of 
projects  put  on  the  website  relates  to  fields  such  as  domestic  violence,  youth  crime,  public 
perception  of  safety,  street  crime  and  prolific  offenders.  The  number  of  public  hits  on  the 
EUCPN's web pages has been constantly on the increase in years.  

Crime statistics  

In  an  effort  to  improve  the  quality  and  comparability  of  data  collected  on  crime,  the 
Commission adopted an Action Plan on crime statistics251 and established an Expert group to 
that  effect252.  A  Working  group  of  producers  of  crime  statistics  was  also  subsequently 
established by Eurostat253. 

Since  the  establishment  of  the  expert  group  in  2007,  much  has  been  done  to  develop 
indicators  in  the  areas  of  money  laundering,  human  trafficking,  and  the  effectiveness  of 
criminal justice systems. Collecting data on identified money laundering began in 2008, and 
will continue throughout 2009. 

These activities have resulted in the establishment of links between the Commission and the 
Financial  Action  Taskforce  (money  laundering),  the  International  Labour  Office  (human 
trafficking),  the  Council  of  Europe  (criminal  justice  systems,  judicial  cooperation,  juvenile 
justice), and the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (criminal justice systems, juvenile justice and 
corruption). This has led to a more coordinated approach to the identifying data needs and the 
collecting data from Member States, and should both improve in the quality of data collected 
and minimise the reporting burden imposed on Member States' administrations. 

In  tandem  with  these  actiities,  the  Commission  has  pursued  the  development  of  crime  and 
criminal justice survey instruments and methodologies. Projects ongoing in this area include: 
an EU crime victimisation survey; a commercial crime survey; a survey on the efficiency of 
criminal justice; a methodology to estimate the cost of crime; indicators on the confidence in 

251 
252 

253 

COM(2006) 437 final. 
Commission Decision 2006/581/EC of 7 August 2006 setting up a group of experts on the policy needs 
for data on crime and criminal justice, OJ L 234, 29.8.2006, p. 29. 
This  group  consists  of  JHA/law  enforcement  users  of  crime  data  from  inter  alia  the  EU-27  among 
others. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
                                                 
justice; and closer links between  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  administrations and the research 
community. 

III. 

Future challenges 

Fighting cyber crime 

It is difficult to assess the current situation in detail as comprehensive data are not available. 
Comparable and quality cyber crime statistics should be developed at EU level. By way of a 
general indication only, the following points can be cited: 

•  The number of attacks on important information infrastructures in the UK is put at 

several thousand a day254. 

•  The number of images of sexually abused children available on line quadrupled in 

the period 2003-2007255. 

•  The numbers of criminal URLs infecting PCs with password-stealing codes rose 

by 93% in the first quarter of 2008256. 

It  is  therefore  clear  that  cyber  crime  poses  an  increasingly  significant  threat  to  critical 
information infrastructure, society, business and citizens. It is also marked by rapid changes in 
criminal targets and methods, and by the increasing involvement of organized crime groups. 
This  changing  environment  requires  a  constant  update  of  anti-cyber  crime  policies,  both  at 
national and at European and international level. 

The  2008  report257  on  the  implementation  of  Framework  Decision  on  attacks  against 
information  systems  undertook  a  detailed  study  of  national  measures,  making  it  possible  to 
identify the scope for further legislative and non-legislative actions.  

Cooperation  with  third  countries  in  the  fight  against  cyber  crime  should  be  enhanced,  in 
particular by involving third countries authorities in EU anti-cyber crime policies.  

Action will be taken in particular to enhance and facilitate cross-border investigations and a 
secure exchange of information and cooperation between national cyber crime units and EU 
authorities  (in  particular  Europol  and  Eurojust),  for  example,  through  EU  funding 
programmes  and  reinforcement  of  the  functions  of  existing  international  24/7  networks  of 
contact points in the EU, the development of a central platform for flagging illegal content on 
the Internet, and the establishment of best practices on the use of investigation techniques and 
tools. Financial programmes are an integral part of Commission's policy in this area.  

Training  programmes  for  EU  cyber  crime  investigators  and  prosecutors  should  be  further 
developed.  

254 
255 
256 

257 

The Times, 23 August 2008. 
Internet Watch Foundation statistics, as reported in the Irish Examiner of 17 April 2007. 
Anti-Phishing  working  group  (APWG),  "Phishing  Activity  Trends  Report  Q1  2008",  available  at: 
http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/apwg_report_Q1_2008.pdf. 
COM(2008) 448 final. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Combating trafficking in human beings, child exploitation and child pornography  

According  to  estimates  provided  by  the  International  Labour  Organisation258,  12.3  million 
people are subjected to forced labour in the world, among them 1,390,000 in forced labour for 
commercial sexual exploitation, 7,810,000 in economic exploitation, and 610,000 in mixed or 
undetermined  forms  of  forced  labour.  Approximately  20%  of  people  in  forced  labour  – 
around 2.45 million – have been victims of trafficking. The financial gain of those profiting 
from trafficking is put at more than 30 billion US dollars a year globally.  

Relatively few criminals are prosecuted in this area . The total number of cases investigated in 
the  EU  was  195  in  2001,  453  in  2003,  1,060  in  2005,  and  1,569  in  2006259.  Despite  the 
upward trend, the number of criminal proceedings is still not comparable with the presumed 
scale of the crime. Therefore, the problem is that trafficking in human beings  is still a high 
profit and low-risk crime for both trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation, particularly 
regarding children. There is also a clear lack of effective policies in the field of victims' rights 
and victim support and prevention. 

Action should be taken to enhance the exchange of information (both operational and strategic 
information, including threat assessments) and cooperation between national specialised units 
and  EU  authorities.  The  use  of  joint  investigation  teams  and  similar  structures  to  enhance 
international  law  enforcement  operational  cooperation  against  trafficking  networks  must  be 
further promoted.  

Training programmes should be developed for investigators and prosecutors as well as for all 
officials likely to come to contact with potential and actual victims. National mechanisms for 
identification  and  referral  to  services  of  trafficking  victims,  and  child  protection  systems 
designated to detect when trafficking occurs, will continue to be established and expanded. 

Efforts  to  increase  cooperation  between  all  stakeholders  (law  enforcement,  information 
security agencies, private sector operators, service providers, etc.) and to improve prevention 
will be continued. These include awareness raising and information targeted campaigns, and 
initiatives aimed at discouraging demand. 

A  new  methodology  of  collecting  data  on  specific  types  of  trafficking  and  measuring  the 
extent  of  the  crime  will  be  developed  and  current  cooperation  projects  with  third  countries 
will be intensified. 

Fight against corruption 

Further  action  will  focus  on  finding  sustainable  ways  of  assessing  Member  States' 
performances  in  the  field  of  preventing  and  combating  corruption.  The  possibility  of  a 
comprehensive EU corruption report, allowing a direct comparison of all Member States and 
published  periodically,  could  be  envisaged.  To  this  end,  comparable  and  quality  corruption 
statistics should be collected at EU-level.  

258 

259 

Patrick Belser, Michaelle De Cock, Fahrad Mehran, Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World, 
ILO, Geneva, April 2005. 
The number of sentences is much lower. The total number in 2006 was 284 sentences for trafficking for 
sexual exploitation. See COM(2008) 657 final. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  will  continue  to  support  anti-corruption  initiatives  and  projects  via  its 
financial  programmes,  such  as    'Prevention  and  fight  agains  crime"  and  the  research 
programmes. 

Training  programmes  for  European  investigators  and  prosecutors  dealing  with  corruption 
could be further developed. Further action should be taken to facilitate cooperation between 
all  stakeholders  (law  enforcement,  information  security  agencies,  private  sector  operators, 
etc.) to prevent and combat corruption.  

Fighting financial crimes  

Financial  investigation  techniques  and  financial  criminal  analysis  should  be  encouraged  at 
national level and, where necessary, at the European level. However, traditional instruments 
must be rethought if the fight against organised crime and how it is financed is to be effective, 
and illicit assets are to be recovered. Widespread financial investigation would intensify the 
fight against organised crime and the financing of terrorism.  

Member  States  should  further  reinforce  Europol  in  order  to  respond  to  the  evolution  of 
financial investigation needs; Europol should be more involved in financial investigations, in 
parallel with investigations into organised crime. 

A methodology for the regular collection of comparable statistics on money laundering in the 
Member  States  should  be  promoted  and  implemented  under  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Crime 
Statistics  in  order  to  help  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  anti-money  laundering  systems  in 
place.  

The  exchange  of  information  between  FIUs  and  other  parties  (law  enforcement,  other 
authorities, private sector) should also be stepped up. A recent Commission study260 analyses 
the  provision  of  feedback  between  the  reporting  entities,  the  FIUs  and  law  enforcement 
authorities.  It  shows  that  feedback  is  not  provided  to  the  private  sector  in  good  time;  that 
structural case-by-case feedback is provided only in a limited number of instances; and that 
more substantial feedback is generally required by the private sector. The Commission should 
continue to facilitate a secure exchange of information between FIUs by supporting technical 
improvements to the FIU-NET system and by promoting broader use of the system by the EU 
FIUs. 

Following on from the work under the SUSTRANS Analysis Working File, an EU database 
on  suspicious  transaction  reports  could  be  set  up  to  help  establish  links  between  suspicious 
transactions  reported  by  a  Member  State  and  ongoing  investigations  carried  out  by  law 
enforcement  agencies  in  other  Member  States.  If  necessary  new  legislation  could  be 
introduced requiring Member States to provide data and allowing the exchange of such data 
between  Member  States    The  €STR  project,   which  receives  financial  support  from  the 
Commission and involves a number of Member States and Europol, is meant to increase the 

260 

B&S  Europe,  "Best  practices  in  vertical  relations  between  the  Financial  Intelligence  Unit  and  i)  law 
enforcement services and ii) money laundering and terrorist financing reporting entities, with a view to 
indicating  effective  models  for  feedback  on  follow-up  to  and  effectiveness  of  suspicious  transaction 
reports", not yet published.  

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
                                                 
effectiveness of Europol's Analysis Working File SUSTRANS and to enhance its value as a 
basic tool for financial intelligence-led policing 

Confiscation and asset recovery 

Regular meetings of the Informal EU Asset Recovery Offices Platform should continue to be 
organised in order to ensure effective exchange of information, coordination and cooperation. 
The  Commission  has  to  adopt  an  implementation  report  by  December  2010  on  the  Council 
Decision on Asset Recovery Offices.  

The  creation  of  centralised  registers  and  databases  (e.g.  land  and  property  registers,  bank 
account  registers,  vehicle  registers,  company  registers)  in  the  Member  States  (where 
necessary)  should  be  promoted  and  supported  in  order  to  facilitate  the  identification  and 
tracing of criminal assets.  

Better  and  comparable  statistics  on  assets  frozen,  confiscated  and  recovered  should  be 
regularly collected and published in order to help assess the effectiveness of the confiscation 
systems in place.  

Fight against counterfeiting 

In  recent  years,  the  number  of  confiscated  articles  at  the  EU  borders  has  risen  by  70%, 
reaching  the  level  of  some  130  millions  articles  in 2006 and 79 millions articles  in 2007261. 
Confiscated goods are an increasing danger to consumers and citizens' health and security. In 
2006,  more  than  2,700,000  articles in  the pharmaceutical  sector (+  400%)  were  detained, 
more than 4 millions (+51%) in 2007262. 

Cyber counterfeiting will be a challenge in the years to come. The criminal dimension of the 
European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory should be supported, in particular  to boost 
the role of Europol and Eurojust. 

The Commission hopes that a legislative instrument will rapidly harmonise criminal measures 
linked  to  the  protection  of  intellectual  property  rights  before  the  2010-2014  period.  In  this 
case, the Commission will be able to consider reinforce EU legislation, particularly as regards 
penalties to be inflicted and horizontal and procedural matters, in order to be better prepared 
to tackle organised crime and health and security threats. 

Intensifying  financial  investigation  and  financial  crime  analysis  as  a  means  of  fighting 
counterfeiting and piracy must be a priority. 

Crime prevention 

The  above-mentioned  2008  evaluation  concluded  that  the  full  potential  of  the  EU  Crime 
Prevention  Network  has  not  yet  been  explored  and  tapped.  It  proposed  a  number  of 

261 

262 

Available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.h
tm 
Ibidem. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
operational  and  strategic  recommendations  to  boost  and  professionalise  the  impact  of  the 
EUCPN on crime prevention.  

The prevention of crime is a multi-faceted task that must be tackled primarily at local levels. 
However,  effective  national  policies  are  essential  to  enabling  local  communities  to  achieve 
their  objectives.  Enhancing  the  exchange  of  experience  and  promising  practices  plays  an 
increasingly  important  role  inside  the  European  Union  and  beyond,  notably  against  the 
background  of  globalisation,  borderless  markets  and  fast  technological  developments 
(Internet).  

Crime statistics 

Midway through the Action Plan's 5-year life-cycle, the time has come to reflect on the fact 
that in order to produce comparable crime and criminal justice data in the EU 3rd pillar there is 
a need for both policy and operational measures to address the structural issues of how crime 
data  are  collected,  classified  and  analysed.  The  Commission  is  currently  funding  initiatives 
and  research  projects  aimed  at  encouraging  convergence  in  the  areas  of  police  and  judicial 
crime statistics, victim surveys, and an offence classification benchmark. The current deficit 
of comparable, reliable statistics at EU level significantly hampers the development of more 
effective policies in this area.  

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
4.6. 

European strategy on drugs 

I. 

Objectives  

The  EU  Drugs  Strategy  2005-2012263,  which  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Hague  Programme, 
aims  to  protect  and  improve  the  well-being  of  society  and  the  individual,  to  protect  public 
health,  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  security  for  the  general  public,  and  to  strike  a  balance 
between the policy of prevention, assistance and rehabilitation of drug dependence, the policy 
of  combating  illegal  drug  trafficking  and  precursors  and  money  laundering,  and  the 
intensification of international cooperation. 

II. 

Main developments  

The European Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 set the framework, objectives and priorities for two 
consecutive four-year Drug Action Plans to be brought forward by the Commission. The first 
Action  Plan  2005-2008  was  endorsed  by  the  Council  in  2005264.  It  contained  over  80 
individual measures and supplemented the Hague Action Plan. Its implementation was closely 
monitored by the Commission, which delivered annual implementation reports for the years 
2006265

 and 2007266.  

In September 2008, the Commission adopted a Communication on an EU Drugs Action Plan 
for the period 2009-2012267, which was accompanied by a final evaluation of the EU Drugs 
Action  Plan  2005-2008268.  This  evaluation  was  carried  out  by  the  Commission  with  the 
support of the Member States, the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction 
(EMCDDA),  Europol  and  the  European  NGO  networks  represented  in  the  Civil  Society 
Forum.  At  the  same  time,  an  impact  assessment  to  determine  the  most  appropriate  policy 
option to implement the EU Drugs Strategy was adopted269. The EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-
2012 was endorsed by the Council in December 2008270. 

The  final  evaluation  of  the  Action  Plan  2005-2008  is  considered  the  most  extensive 
assessment  of  EU  drugs  policy  carried  out  so  far  and  has  resulted  in  a  number  of 
recommendations,  many  of  which  have  been  translated  into the new EU Drugs Action Plan 
2009-2012. The evaluation showed that the objectives of the Plan have been partly achieved. 

•  Although drug use in the EU remains high, available data suggest that the use of 
heroin, cannabis and synthetic drugs has stabilised or is declining, but that cocaine 
use is rising in a number of Member States. The total number of people in the EU 
who have at some time taken drugs (‘lifetime prevalence’) is put at 71 million for 
cannabis,  12  million  for  cocaine,  9.5  million  for  ecstasy,  and  11  million  for 

263 
264 

265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 

Council document 15074/04. 
On  the  basis  of  COM(2005)  45  final,  the  EU  drugs  action  plan  (2005-2008)  was  endorsed  by  the 
Council in 2004, 2005/C 168/01, OJ C 168, 8.7.2005, p. 1. 
SEC(2006) 1803. 
COM(2007) 781 final. 
COM(2008) 567 final. 
SEC(2008) 2456.  
SEC(2008) 2455. 
2008/C 326/09, OJ C 326, 20.12.2008, p. 7. 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
                                                 
amphetamines,  while  more  that  600  thousand  people  are  known  to  be  receiving 
substitution treatment for drugs like heroin271. 

•  Data available for comparison with third countries show that the consumption of 
cannabis,  cocaine  and  amphetamines  in  the  EU  is  significantly  lower  than,  for 
example, in the United States.  

•  Evidence  shows  that  the  EU  is  succeeding  in  at  least  containing  the  complex 
social phenomenon of widespread substance use and abuse, and that it is focusing 
increasingly on measures to address the harm caused by drugs to individuals and 
society. It is important to note that over the period under review, world production 
of  illicit  opiate  rose  sharply  and  unprecedented  traffic  in  cocaine  rolled  into  the 
EU. 

•  In  terms  of  international  cooperation,  there  is  now  better  coordination  of  EU 
positions in international forums on drugs, but the lack of a focused and structured 
second pillar remains a weakness. On the other hand, the EU’s balanced approach 
to drugs is being used increasingly as a model for third countries. 

While  progress  has  been  made  in  many  areas,  weaknesses  have  also  been  identified.  In 
particular,  policy  coordination  problems  persist  in  many  areas,  within  the  Commission, 
between Member States and within Member States, and even if the quality of information on 
the  EU  situation  regarding  drug  use,  prevention  and  treatment  has  consistently  improved, 
considerable knowledge gaps remain: there is a persistent lack of reliable data on drug supply 
but also on the scope and outcomes of drug-related assistance to third countries. 

The  current  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  2009-2012  takes  on  board  these  lessons  learnt  and  puts 
forward measures to address them. 

During  the  period  covered  by  the  Hague  programme,  the  Commission  launched  a  series  of 
initiatives  to  increase  the  role  of  civil  society  in  drugs  policies.  In  response  to  the 
Commission's  Green  Paper  on  the  role  of  civil  society  in  drugs  policy272,  the  Civil  Society 
Forum on Drugs is one of the very first attempts to establish a permanent structure for public 
consultation on  drugs in  the area of freedom, security and justice. The Civil Society Forum 
helps to implement the European Transparency Initiative273 and reflects the importance of this 
kind of structured dialogue. 

The Council Framework Decision on drugs trafficking274 called for a Commission report to be 
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament to assess Member States' compliance 
with  these  legal  provisions.  The  report  is  being  prepared  by  the  Commission  and  will  be 
presented in 2009.  

271 
272 
273 
274 

EMCDDA Annual Report 2008, available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/events/2008/annual-report. 
COM(2006) 316 final. 
COM(2008) 323 final. 
Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on 
the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, OJ L 335, 
11.11.2004, p. 8. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
III. 

Future challenges 

Regarding future priorities for EU Drugs Policy beyond 2012, a decision will be taken on the 
basis  of  the  evaluation  of  the  existing  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2012)  as  to  whether  a  new 
EU Drugs Strategy for the period post-2012 is needed and in what form. These plans will be 
drawn  up  during  the  last  two  years  of  the  life  of  the  Stockholm  Programme.  Any  potential 
new  Drugs  Strategy  and/or  Drugs  Action  Plan  should  become  an  integral  part  of  the 
Stockholm programme exercise. Future plans will be drawn up in close cooperation between 
the Commission, the Member States, civil society and the other EU Institutions, in particular 
the  European  Parliament.  While  abiding  by  the  principles  that  form  the  basis  for  the 
"European Approach" to drugs, the future policy will very probably take new potential needs 
into account.  

The  current  and  past  action  plans  are  mainly  conceived  as  coordination  instruments 
containing  non-legislative  measures  and  recommendations  for  the  implementation  of  drug 
policy.  

The evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) shows that, despite the non-binding 
nature  of  the  current  drug  policy,  there  is  a  definite  trend  towards  convergence  among  the 
Member  States  on  this  issue,  whilst  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  the  Member  States' 
fundamental prerogatives in the field of drugs continue to be observed.  

More  substantial  involvement  of  Civil  Society  at  national  level,  in  the  formulation  and 
implementation of EU policy on drugs should be encouraged. This may entail more structural 
consultation  of  civil  society  on  drug  policy  beyond  2012.  This  could  be  achieved  by 
encouraging  Member  States  to  establish  specific  consultation  mechanisms  at  national  level, 
although resistance should be expected here as some Member States take a dim view of the 
Commission  getting  involved  in  this.  The  European  Commission's  Civil  Society  Forum  on 
Drugs can play a driving role in this respect, including at national levels.  

The interim evaluation by 2010 of the first two years of activity of the "European Action on 
Drugs" initiative will provide valuable insights into effective methods of involve civil society. 
The  new  ‘European  Action  on  Drugs’  initiative  aims  to  mobilise  a  broad  range  of  civil 
society,  stakeholders  and  citizens,  taking  concrete  steps  to  raise  awareness,  in  particular 
among  young  people  and  increase  a  general  commitment  in  European  societies  to  dealing 
with the drug problem. This might consequently be follow up.  

As  regards  international  cooperation,  the  EU  should  continue  to  "export"  its  balanced 
approach  in  third  country  and  to  coordinate  efforts  in  the  drugs  field,  including  for  facing 
threat  related  to  traditional  –  such  Afghanistan  –  and  "new"  trafficking  routes  like  West 
Africa.  

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
5. 

STRENGTHENING JUSTICE 

5.1. 

European Court of Justice 

I. 

Objectives  

Points  of  laws  which  arise  in  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  need  to  be  brought 
before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and dealt with to as swiftly as possible. This was 
recognised  originally  in  Article  III-369  of  the  Constitutional  Treaty,  and  the  Hague 
Programme called on the Commission to consider how requests for preliminary rulings in the 
area might be handled speedily and appropriately.  

II. 

Main developments 

Requests for preliminary rulings submitted to the ECJ which concern areas covered by Title 
VI of the EU Treaty or Title IV of Part Three of the EC Treaty often require a rapid response, 
which  is  not  permitted  by  the  Court's  normal  preliminary  ruling  procedure,  nor  by  the 
accelerated  procedure  that  can  be  applied  only  in  exceptional  cases.  The  Court  therefore 
adopted  an  urgent  preliminary  ruling  procedure  in  March  2008,  which  limits  and  simplifies 
the  stages  of  the  preliminary  ruling  procedure275.  The  application  of  this  procedure  may  be 
requested  by  national  courts  or,  exceptionally,  by  the  ECJ  itself  where  it  deems  it  to  be 
necessary.  

III. 

Future challenges 

There  is  currently  an  anomalous  situation  in  which  the  Court  of  Justice  does  not  have  full 
jurisdiction in the area of freedom, security and justice. The Treaty of Lisbon would address 
this by giving the Court complete jurisdiction in this area, including in relation to police and 
judicial  cooperation  and  the  general  regime  of  infringements  and  preliminary  rulings  The 
Treaty does not extend the Court's jurisdiction to questions of the validity or proportionality 
of police operations and other measures taken by Member States to maintain law and order or 
safeguard internal security. 

The  extension  of  the  Court's  jurisdiction  to  police  and  judicial  cooperation,  and  also  of  the 
Commission's powers to commence infringement proceedings, will be subject to a transitional 
period of up to five years after the Treaty enters into force. During the transitional period the 
Court's jurisdiction will remain as it currently is under the Third Pillar and Article 35(2) of the 
TEU.  Five  years  after  the  Treaty  enters  in  force,  the  UK  will  have  the  option  of  deciding 
whether  to  accept  the  Court's  jurisdiction  or  opt  out  completely  from  the  pre-existing  Third 
Pillar acquis. If the UK decides to opt out, it will be able at any subsequent point to opt back 
in.  

275 

OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 39. 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2. 

Confidence-building and mutual trust 

I. 

Objectives  

Mutual  trust  is  a  precondition  for  mutual  recognition.  Only  if  practitioners  trust  the  legal 
systems  in  the  other  Member  State  and  the  way  it  is  applied  in  practice  by  their  colleagues 
will  they  be  willing  to  recognise  and  enforce  foreign  decisions  without  further  formalities. 
However,  despite  good  political  intentions,  in  practice  there  appears  to  be  a  lack  of  mutual 
trust and courts or other judicial authorities are sometimes reluctant or slow to recognise and 
enforce foreign judgments or judicial decisions. Lack of mutual trust also has negative effects 
on  the  negotiations  of  instruments,  particularly  in  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  where 
grounds of refusal and other exceptions or opt-outs are often introduced to counterbalance the 
obligation of mutual recognition.  

To  make  it  easier  to  apply  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition,  the  Hague  Programme 
highlighted  the  importance  of  increasing  confidence  and  mutual  trust  through  an  impartial 
assessment  of  the  implementation  of  EU  measures  in  the  field  of  justice,  the  support  for  a 
network  of  judicial  organisations  and  institutions  and  exchange  programmes  and  trainings 
schemes.  

The Programme also underlined the need for citizens to have access to a judicial system that 
meets high quality standards, and for efforts to improve mutual understanding among judicial 
authorities and different legal systems. 

II. 

Main developments 

An  important  tool  for  improving  access  to  information  on  the  various  justice  and  legal 
systems, for increasing mutual trust and understanding, and for ensuring access to high quality 
justice is European e-Justice. The Member States have been working on e-Justice at national 
level and since 2003 have also started cross-border pilot projects, some of which have been 
partially financed by Community funds (for example, interconnection of criminal records and 
insolvency registers). Following the call from the Council in June 2007 for an overall strategy 
for the use of information and communication technologies (ICT)276, the Commission issued a 
Communication on e-Justice in 2008277. Also in 2008, the Council adopted the European e-
Justice Action Plan278, which calls for the Commission to launch and manage the European e-
Justice  portal  in  December  2009.  In  December  2008,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a 
report on e-Justice279 on which discussions are still ongoing.  

While e-Justice was not explicitly mentioned in the Hague Programme, the respective work 
was  based  on  achievements  to  date  at  national  level  and  on  decisions  by  the  European 
institutions to use ICT tools to deal with specific problems in cross-border cases. European e-
Justice will be essential to achieving the objectives of better access to high quality justice and 
mutual understanding among judicial authorities and differing legal systems. 

276 
277 
278 
279 

Council document 10267/07, p. 43. 
COM(2008) 329 final. 
Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 31, adopting Council document 15315/08. 
European Parliament document INI/2008/2125. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A systematic evaluation of the EU policies in the field of Justice is not in place, but several 
evaluations  have  already  been  carried  out  in  the  field  of  justice.  Moreover,  a  Commission 
Communication on the creation of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice has 
was  adopted  in  2008280.  The  Justice  Forum  provides  a  platform  for  a  regular  dialogue  on 
policies and practice in the area of European justice. It aims to increase mutual trust, promote 
best practices and improve mutual recognition and access to justice. The Justice Forum brings 
together legal practitioners, academics and representatives of justice administrations from the 
Member States, who, during thematic meetings, provide the Commission with input for new 
initiatives  as  well  as  feedback  on  existing  legal  instruments  and  policies.  In  addition,  the 
Commission  will  continue  to  support  the  initiatives  of  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private 
International Law aimed at increasing direct communications between judges281.  

In 2006, the Commission has published a Communication on judicial training in the EU282,  a 
development  based  on  a  pilot  project  for  the  exchange  of  magistrates  (2005)  and  on 
preparatory action (2006).  

In  2008,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  report  on  the  role  of  judges  in  the  European 
judicial  system283,  which  shows  that  the  measures  currently  in  place  regarding  training  in 
European  matters  are  insufficient  and  that  judges  themselves  say  that  they  do  not  know 
European legislation well enough. In November 2008, a resolution calling on Member States 
to promote continuous training of the legal professions and additional language training was 
adopted by the Council284. 

Practitioners say that they have insufficient knowledge of EU instruments, to what extent they 
are  transposed  into  national  legislation  and  how  to  use  them.  Studies285  show  that  national 
judges are in favour of more training on EU law and that they need to improve their linguistic 
skills.  In  the  area  of  criminal  law,  insufficient  knowledge  of  the  national  law  implementing 
the  EU  instruments  is  also  a  problem.  If  a  practitioner  wants  to  know  the  rules  in  another 
Member  State  regarding  a  specific  EU  instrument  he  needs  to  access  the  national 
implementing legislation, which is often drafted in a language that he does not understand. In 
general, the lack of sufficient knowledge of foreign languages among judges and prosecutors 
poses  a  problem  for  judicial  cooperation.  The  Commission  has  therefore  financed  training 
programmes for the legal professions throughout the Hague Programme   

Exchanges of judges and public prosecutors between Member States was considered to be a 
good  way  to  provide  training  on  cross-border  issues  while  developing  mutual  trust  through 
personal contacts and better knowledge of another judicial system. Following several years of 
the  above-mentioned 
financing  and  an  external  assessment  of 

this  pilot  project, 

280 
281 

282 
283 
284 
285 

COM(2008) 38 final. 
In  January  2009,  for  example,  a  Joint  conference  with  the  European  Commission  on  Direct  Judicial 
Communications on Family Law Matters & the Development of Judicial Networks took place. 
COM(2006) 356 final. 
European Parliament document INI/2007/2027. 
Council document 14667/08, p. 22. 
The  European  Parliament's  report  on  the  role  of  the  national  judge  in  the  European  judicial  system, 
previously  mentioned, and the study conducted by the Université Libre de Bruxelles on behalf of the 
European  Commission,  "Analysis  of  the  future  of  mutual  recognition  in  criminal  matters  in  the 
European Union", available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/criminal/recognition/docs/mutual_recognition_en.pdf.  

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Communication on judicial training launched a larger-scale programme. Exchanges began in 
2007  and  have  involved  around  400  judges  and  prosecutors.  These  programmes  need 
substancial support from Member States to be sustainable.  

The  European  Judicial  Training  Network,  founded  in  2000  and  supported  by  the  EU, 
promotes training in EU law by networking amongst national training institutes and organises 
exchange programmes for judges and prosecutors. The Commission has funding programmes 
for  civil  and  criminal  justice  aimed  at  improving  mutual  recognition  by  fostering  mutual 
knowledge of legal and judicial systems.  

Further to the establishment of the European Rule of Law Initiative for Central Asia by the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  in  2007  and  of  the  Euro-Mediterranean  partnership  in 
2008, cooperation on judicial training between Member States and third countries is regarded 
as an important tool for establishing and underscoring the rule of law in all countries. 

Other training programmes on environmental law, the fight against corruption and maritime 
law have targeted specific legal professionals such as administrative judges. 

Dissemination  of  information  and  knowledge  to  national  judges  and  public  prosecutors  is  a 
task within the remit of the national contact points of the European Judicial Network in Civil 
and  Commercial  Matters  (EJNCCM)286  and  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  Criminal 
Matters287.  They  assist  national  judges  and  public  prosecutors  by  providing  them  with 
essential information on cross-border procedures. In addition, the websites and atlases of the 
two networks provide precise information on cross-border issues, and are used more and more 
extensively  by  the  judiciary.  An  Internet-based  information  system  for  the  public  has  been 
gradually  established  (hosted  on  the  Europa  website),  which  averages  100,000  visits  per 
month.  The  European  Judicial  Atlases  play  a  very  practical  role  in  helping  individuals  and 
businesses to access the information the need to initiate legal proceedings in another Member 
State (the civil Atlas averages 1,700 visitors per month, the criminal Atlas just under 8,000). 
Both  these  Networks  link  to  the  European  Judicial  Atlases,  information  technology  tools 
developed  to  improve  access  to  justice  in  cross  border-cases  and  judicial  cooperation,  by 
allowing individuals and practitioners to find out which court or judicial authority to contact 
and to fill in the relevant forms on line and send them electronically. 

III. 

Future challenges 

Mutual  trust  is  a  precondition  for  mutual  recognition  to  work.  Knowing  whether  and  how 
procedural rights are protected in other Member States may help to improve mutual trust. The 
Commission is currently preparing an instrument on procedural rights in criminal matters and 
will commission a study on minimum standards in civil procedural law.  

286 

287 

Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and 
commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25. 
Council  Decision  2008/976/JHA  of 16 December 2008 on  the  European  Judicial Network, OJ  L  348, 
24.12.2008, p. 130, which replace Joint Action 98/428/JHA of 29 June 1998 adopted by the Council on 
the  basis  of  Article  K.3  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union,  on  the  creation  of  a  European  Judicial 
Network, OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 4. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  e-Justice  portal288  is  designed  to  improve  judicial  cooperation  and  facilitate  access  to 
justice by citizens and businesses across Europe. Work on the European e-Justice portal has 
started. The target date of December 2009 for the first release is ambitious and will focus on 
information  for  citizens  and  businesses.  Functions  –  for  judicial  authorities  and  legal 
professionals – developed by the Member States in the context of pilot projects funded by the 
"Civil Justice"289 and "Criminal Justice"290 programmes are expected to be integrated if they 
are  mature  and  technically  ready.  As  from  2010,  functions  will  be  added  to  the  portal 
incrementally. The potential offered by e-Justice must be fully tapped in order to facilitate and 
support citizens' access to justice. 

The Commission should continue to request independent studies on specific topics in order to 
evaluate  the  extent  of  the  problems  in  the  justice  area.  Apart  from  quantitative  evaluations, 
thorough and structural qualitative evaluations of the application of existing instruments will 
also be necessary. Community instruments usually contain evaluation obligations, calling on 
the  Commission  to  assess  their  effectiveness  and  to  report  on  the  application  of  the 
instrument. Constructive and timely reactions on the part of the Member States to requests for 
information  for  such  reports  will  be  crucial  to  ensuring  that  these  reports  are  of  the  highest 
quality and can act as a basis for discussions on the instrument in question. The peer review 
system291  is  another  method  already  commonly  used  for  evaluation,  like  in  the  case  of  the 
European  Arrest  Warrant.  Peer  review  makes  it  possible  for  an  evaluation  team  to  use 
questionnaires  and  interviews  with  stakeholders  to  assess  the  performance  of  each  Member 
State.  At  present,  there  is  no  coherent  method  of  collecting  data  on  justice,  which  makes  it 
difficult  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  EU  instruments.  Mechanisms  and  methodologies  for 
collecting and comparing data should therefore be developed. The EJNs could provide useful 
support  for  data  collection  and  national  ministries  of  justice  should  also  play  a  more  active 
role in compiling statistics.  

Although  a  systematic  evaluation  of  EU  policies  in  the  field  of  Justice  with  a  view  to 
improving  mutual  trust  and  enhance  the  functioning  of  the  European  Justice  Area  is  not  in 
place,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  debate  –  following  up  a  Dutch  initiative  –  on  the 
possible developments of this option in the future. 

Exchange  programmes,  such  as  those  arranged  by  the  European  Judicial  Training  Network, 
and  networking  are  excellent  ways  of  improving  mutual  knowledge  and  understanding  of 
other Member States' judicial systems work. Initiatives for these programmes targeting public 
prosecutors  and  judges  should  be  further  encouraged  and  financially  supported  by  the  EU. 
Funding  will  be  available  for  the  European  Judicial  Training  Network  and  its  training 
activities,  as  well  as  for  training  courses  for  judges  on  specific  topics,  such  as  those  at  the 

288 
289 

290 

291 

COM(2008) 329 final.  
Decision  No 1149/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  September  2007 
establishing  for  the  period  2007-2013  the  Specific  Programme  Civil  Justice  as  part  of  the  General 
Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice', OJ L 257, 3.10.2007, p. 16. 
Council Decision 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part 
of  the  General  Programme  on  Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice,  the  Specific  Programme  Criminal 
Justice, OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 13. 
Joint Action 97/827/JHA of 5 December 1997 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the 
Treaty on European Union, establishing a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation 
at  national  level  of  international  undertakings  in  the  fight  against  organized  crime,  OJ  L  344, 
15.12.1997, p. 7. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European  Law  Academy  in  Trier.  In  addition,  the  Criminal  and  Civil  Justice  financial 
programmes make it possible to fund other initiatives in this area. 

With  regard  to  judicial  training,  as  necessary  as  European-level  programmes  are  for  legal 
professionals,  they  cannot  enable  all  legal  professionals  to  be  trained  at  European  level. 
Discussions  regarding  the  promotion  of  "train  the  trainer"  programmes  or  e-learning  tools 
have begun and need to be encouraged. Training a restricted number of legal professionals to 
fulfil  a  training  role  at  national  level  is  the  preferred  method.  E-learning  tools  are  not  yet 
completely  adapted  to  the  needs  of  legal  professionals  but  an  overall  strategy  on  training 
should include such tools.  

Action should be also taken to help national legislative officers to implement EU instruments: 
information seminars and/or country-specific help can be set up during the period between the 
adoption of the instrument and the date from which it must be applied. These seminars would 
also allow legislative officers of different Member States to meet and share their experience 
and best practice. 

It is important that practitioners should have easy access to legislative texts and manuals. The 
websites of both Judicial Networks play an important role in improving the dissemination of 
information and should be further supported. Furthermore, the Commission should continue 
to contribute to drafting practice guides and manuals, where appropriate in cooperation with 
the EJNs. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
5.3. 

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters  

I. 

Objectives  

The  Hague  Programme  set  ambitious  objectives  in  the  field  of  criminal  justice  cooperation, 
calling  for  the  completion  of  the  programme  of  mutual  recognition  and  the  development  of 
equivalent  standards  for  procedural  rights  in  criminal  proceedings;  the  approximation  of 
substantial  and  procedural  criminal  law  in  order  to  facilitate  mutual  recognition;  and  the 
consolidation  and  further  development  of  Eurojust  in  order  to  improve  cooperation  and 
coordination of investigations. In addition, the Hague package also envisaged the adoption of 
other  instruments  for  strengthening  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  and  the 
participation in and conclusions of international conventions. 

II. 

Main developments 

Mutual recognition in criminal matters 

The  mutual  recognition  programme  in  criminal  matters  was  launched  in  2000292  and 
consolidated  in  2005  by  the  Communication  on  mutual  recognition  of  decisions  in  criminal 
matters  and  reinforcement  of  mutual  trust  between  Member  States293.  It  has  been  partially 
achieved,  as  some  of  its  measures  have  been  more  successfully  implemented  and  have  had 
greater impacts then others. This overall assessment of developments in the field of criminal 
justice cooperation is also supported by a study commissioned by the European Parliament on 
the issue294. 

Implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision  on  the  European  Arrest  Warrant  and  the 
surrender  procedures  between  Member  States295  is  generally  considered  to  be  the  biggest 
success in this field: the first report on implementation by 24 Member States was adopted in 
2005296.  A  revised  version  to  include  Italy  (implementation  in  May  2005)  was  adopted  in 
2006297. The second report on the implementation of the Framework Decision was adopted in 
2007298. The practical application of the EAW is also assessed in a round of peer evaluations. 
This round started in 2006. An overall evaluation report is expected in mid-2009.  

The EAW has been operational throughout all 27 Member States since 1  January 2007: the 
implementation reports (and the "peer reviews")  are generally positive and demonstrate that 
the  EAW  is  a  well-functioning  system,  which  has  dramatically  increased  the  number  of 
persons  surrendered  between  Member  States,  and  sensibly  reduced  the  time  needed  for 
surrender.  Although  there  is  no  common  statistical  tool  and  not  all  Member  States  provide 

292 

293 
294 

295 

296 
297 
298 

Programme  of  measures  to  implement  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  of  decisions  in  criminal 
matters, 2001/C 12/02, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 
COM(2005) 195 final. 
European  Parliament,  "Progress  Made  and  Existing  Gaps  in  the  Field  of  Judicial  co-operation  in 
criminal matters", 2007, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file=18151. 
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. 
COM(2005) 63 final. 
COM(2006) 8 final. 
COM(2007) 407 final. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
                                                 
statistics, the data received seem to confirm that the European arrest warrant is now used as a 
matter  of  course  everywhere  and  the  general  trends  illustrated  suggest  that  the  procedure  is 
effective. The figures in the table below speak for themselves.  

Number of EAWs issued 

Number  of  persons  traced  and/or 
arrested 

2005299

2006300 

6900 

1770 

6750 

2040 

2007301

11,000 

4200 

Numbers of persons surrendered 

1530 

1890 

3400 

In a majority of Member States surrender with consent takes place within 11 days and without 
consent within not more than about two months. Around 50% of surrenders take place with 
the  consent  of  the  sought  person.  On  average  around  25%  of  cases  involve  surrender  of 
nationals for prosecution in another Member State.  

Nevertheless, transposition in certain Member States can create problems that the absence of 
infringement  procedures  make  difficult  to  solve.  At  the  same  time,  some  Member  States 
tabled  and  amendment  to  the  Framework  Decision  for  in  absentia  judgments302.  This 
amendment to the EAW and other framework decisions has been adopted in 2009303.  

A  study  conducted  by  the  European  Parliament304  confirms  this  overall  assessment  of  the 
instrument  and  also  stresses  that  the  EAW  could  be  used  more  efficiently,  in  particular 
through a greater involvement of both Europol and Eurojust.  

The  assessment  of  other  instruments  over  the  last  few  years  does  not  show  such  a  positive 
trend. The implementation report305 on the Framework Decision on the execution in the EU of 

299 
300 
301 
302 

303 

304 

305 

Council document 9005/5/06 rev 5. 
Council document 11371/4/07 rev 4. 
Council document 10330/3/08 rev 3. 
Initiative  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia,  the  French  Republic,  the  Czech  Republic,  the  Kingdom  of 
Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view 
to adopting a Council Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the enforcement of decisions rendered in 
absentia  and  amending  Framework  Decision  2002/584/JHA  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the 
surrender procedures between  Member  States,  Framework Decision  2005/214/JHA on  the  application 
of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the 
application  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  confiscation  orders,  and  Framework  Decision 
2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters 
imposing  custodial  sentences  or  measures  involving  deprivation  of  liberty  for  the  purpose  of  their 
enforcement in the European Union, OJ C 52, 26.2.2008, p. 1. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2009/299/JHA  of  26 February  2009  amending  Framework  Decisions 
2002/584/JHA,  2005/214/JHA,  2006/783/JHA,  2008/909/JHA  and  2008/947/JHA,  thereby  enhancing 
the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to 
decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial, OJ L 81, 27.3.2009, p. 24. 
European Parliament, "Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and Joint Investigation Teams 
at 
at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file=24333 . 
COM(2008) 885 final. 

available 

National 

level", 

2009, 

and 

EU 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
orders  freezing  property  or  evidence306  showed  that,  by  the  end  of  October  2008,  only 
nineteen307 Member States had sent their national implementing laws to the Commission and 
the Council and confirmed that implementation of the Framework Decision is not satisfactory. 
The report concluded that there have been few notifications and some implementing laws do 
not even refer to the Framework Decision. Furthermore, the 19 national legislations indicate 
numerous  omissions  and  misinterpretations.  There  is  room  for  improvement,  especially  as 
regards direct contact between judicial authorities, grounds for refusal to recognise or execute 
the freezing order and also reimbursement. However, swift execution of freezing orders seems 
to  be  the  norm.  Moreover,  the  Framework  Decision  is  hardly  used  by  practitioners.  They 
consider  the  instrument  to  be  too  complicated  and  too  specific  compared  to  the  existing 
mutual  legal  assistance  regime  and  prefer  to  work  on  the  basis  of  conventions  such  as  the 
1959 Council of Europe convention, the Schengen Implementing Agreement and the 2000 EU 
Convention. 

The implementation report on the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of 
mutual  recognition  to  financial  penalties308  shows  that,  as  at  October  2008,  only  eleven 
Member  States  had  sent  their  national  implementation  laws  to  the  Commission  and  the 
Council. According to the report, this is why the degree of implementation of the Framework 
Decision could not be fully assessed at that stage. The national implementing provisions are 
generally  in  line  with  the  Framework  Decision,  especially  as  regards  the  most  important 
issues such as abolishing dual criminality checks and recognition of decisions without further 
formality.  Unfortunately,  an  analysis  of  the  grounds  for  refusal  of  recognition  or  execution 
showed that, whereas almost all Member States had transposed them, they were implemented 
mostly as obligatory grounds. Furthermore, a number of additional grounds were added. This 
practice is clearly not in line with the Framework Decision. 

Other mutual recognition instruments have also been adopted in the area of judicial decision, 
such  as  the  financial  and  custodial  sentences309  and  confiscation  orders310  framework 
decisions. 

In the field of criminal, the lack of timely or correct transposition of EU framework decisions 
into  national  law  causes  problems  at  different  levels.  If  the  instrument  is  not  transposed, 
practitioners  cannot  use  it  and  have  to  use  a  mixture  of  instruments,  which  complicates 
matters rather then making them simpler for practitioners. In addition, trials would be shorter 
and more efficient if EU instruments were used properly, to the benefit of suspects, the courts 
and the administration of justice alike. More generally, full mutual recognition would improve 
the fight against transnational crime, to the benefit of society as a whole. 

306 

307 

308 
309 

310 

Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of 
orders freezing property or evidence, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45. 
Since the publication of the implementation report the Commission has received two new notifications 
(RO and IE). 
COM(2008) 888 final. 
Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle 
of  mutual  recognition  to  judgments  in  criminal  matters  imposing  custodial  sentences  or  measures 
involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, OJ L 327, 
5.12.2008, p. 27.  
Council  Framework  Decision  2005/212/JHA  of  24  February  2005  on  Confiscation  of  Crime-Related 
Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Properties, OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Many  developments  have  been  registered  in  the  field  of  exchange  of  information  extracted 
from  criminal  records.  As  existing  mechanisms  of  exchange  of  information  did  not  yield 
reliable  results,  for  example,  the  Commission  has  been  developing  a  "criminal  records 
package"  since  2004  in  order  to  ensure  that  information  on  criminal  convictions  circulates 
properly  between  the  Member  States  and  that  this  information  can  be  taken  into  account. 
Interconnection of criminal records is part of the European e-justice project, although not part 
of the portal.  

Responding to the Fourniret child abuse case of 2004, the Commission presented a proposal 
for  a  Council  Decision  on  the  exchange  of  information  extracted  from  criminal  records311, 
which was adopted by the Council in 2005312. This Decision in particular establishes the legal 
possibility  of  exchanging  information  on  national  criminal  records  for  other  purposes  than 
criminal proceedings, which was a difficulty before, as demonstrated by the Fourniret case. 

In  2005,  the  Commission  presented  a  White  Paper  on  exchanges  of  information  on 
convictions and the effect of such convictions in the European Union313, analysing the main 
obstacles to the exchange of information on convictions and putting forward proposals for a 
computerised  information  exchange  system.  As  a  result,  in  2005  the  Commission  tabled  a 
proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of exchange of 
information  extracted  from  criminal  records  between  the  Member  States314,  which  has  been 
adopted  in  2009315.  The  main  objective  of  the  Framework  Decision  is  to  ensure  that  the 
Member  State  of  a  person's  nationality  is  in  a  position  to  provide  exhaustive  and  complete 
information in relation to its nationals’ criminal records upon request from another Member 
State. The Framework Decision also provides the basis for developing a computerised system 
to make for faster transmission of information on criminal convictions, in a form that Member 
States  can  understand  and  use  more  easily.  The  mechanism  established  by  the  Framework 
Decision  aims  among  other  things  to  ensure  that  a  person  convicted  of  a  sexual  offence 
against children is no longer able to conceal this conviction or prohibition in order to exercise 
professional  activity  related  to  the  supervision  of  children  in  another  Member  State.  This 
provision  is  applicable  where  the  criminal  record  of  that  person  in  the  convicting  Member 
State  contains  such  a  conviction  and,  if  imposed  and  entered  in  the  criminal  record,  a 
disqualification arising from it. 

In order to implement certain technical and legal aspects of the above Framework Decision, in 
2008 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment of the 
European  Criminal  Records  Information  System  (ECRIS)316.  Political  agreement  on  this 
Decision was reached in a record time of only three months of discussions in the Council, in 

311 
312 

313 
314 
315 

316 

COM(2004) 664 final. 
Council Decision 2005/876/JHA of 21 November 2005 on the exchange of information extracted from 
the criminal record, OJ L 322, 9.12.2005, p. 33. 
COM(2005) 10 final. 
COM(2005) 690 final. 
Council  Framework  Decision  2009/315/JHA  of  26 February  2009  on  the  organisation  and  content  of 
the  exchange  of  information  extracted  from  the  criminal  record  between  Member  States,  OJ  L  93, 
7.4.2009, p. 23. 
COM(2008) 332 final. 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
                                                 
October 2008, and it was adopted in April 2009317. The proposal aims to build and develop a 
computerised  conviction-information  exchange  system.  The  system  would  enable  electronic 
interconnection  of  criminal  records,  where  information  exchanged  on  convictions  between 
Member States is speedy, uniform and readily computer-transferable. To that end, it first sets 
up the general architecture for the electronic exchange of information, laying the foundations 
for  future  IT  developments  in  the  interconnection  of  national  criminal  records.  Secondly,  it 
creates a standardised European format of transmission of information on convictions. In this 
respect  it  provides  for  two  reference  tables  of  categories  of  offences  and  categories  of 
sanctions which should facilitate machine translation and enable mutual understanding of the 
information transmitted by using a system of codes.  

Since  these  mechanisms  concern  the  exchange  of  information  on  EU  nationals,  the 
Commission  identified  the  need  to  supplement  them  by  an  index  of  convicted  third-country 
nationals, which would allow convicted third-country nationals in the EU Member States to 
be detected. In 2006, the Commission adopted a Working Document on the feasibility of an 
index of third-country nationals convicted in the European Union318. Following an orientation 
debate  in  the  Council  in  March  2008,  the  Commission  is  further  examining  the  practical 
aspects of such an index, including the types of data it should contain and the respective cost 
implications,  before  presenting  a  legislative  proposal.  Apart  from  legislative  steps,  the 
Commission  has  also  undertaken  a  number  of  technical  and  financial  measures  to  help 
Member States put the technical infrastructure in place for connecting their criminal records 
systems. In 2009, the Commission will be able to provide Member States with the software 
they  need  to  use  this  information  exchange  mechanism.  Moreover,  the  Commission  lends 
financial  support  to  Member  States'  efforts  to  modernise  police  records.  In  2007,  about  €  9 
million was allocated to Member States for this purpose. € 12 million was available in 2008 
for the European-wide interconnection works.  

The Commission also adopted a Communication  on "disqualifications arising from criminal 
convictions in the European Union" in 2006319. However, the area of disqualifications is not 
yet covered by any instrument based on the mutual recognition principle. 

Approximation of criminal law 

Mutual  recognition  is  difficult  to  apply  when  the  differences  between  legal  systems  of  the 
Member  States  are  too  wide,  in  particular  in  criminal  law.  Differences  in  national  rules  on 
procedural rights may lead to judges being reluctant to execute a foreign judgment or decision 
if  they  have  concerns  that  these  rights  have  not  been  fully  respected.  Differences  in  other 
areas, such as substantive criminal law, the level of sanctions imposed  in practice or prison 
conditions can also be problematic. Furthermore, with the partial abolition of dual criminality 
checks  in  mutual  recognition  instruments,  some  Member  States  are  becoming  increasingly 
reluctant  to  execute  foreign  decisions,  for  example,  to  collect  evidence  by  using  coercive 
powers, without harmonising the definitions of the offences concerned. 

317 

318 
319 

Council  Decision  2009/316/JHA  of  6 April  2009  on  the  establishment  of  the  European  Criminal 
Records  Information  System  (ECRIS)  in  application  of  Article  11  of  Framework  Decision 
2009/315/JHA, OJ L 93, 7.4.2009, p. 33. 
COM(2006) 359 final. 
COM(2006) 73 final. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The strengthening of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and 
judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  has  been  partially  achieved.  The  Green  Paper  on 
Conflicts of Jurisdiction and Double Jeopardy (ne bis in idem)320 was the origin of the Czech 
initiative  at  beginning  of  2009321  for  the  adoption  of  a  framework  decision  on  conflict  of 
jurisdiction, which is being discussed within the Council. 

The 2004 Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights322 has 
been under discussion for three years in the Council Working Party on substantive  criminal 
law (DROIPEN) but has not been adopted yet. 

A  Green  Paper  on  presumption  of  innocence  was  adopted  in  2006323  but  it  has  not  been 
followed  up  by  a  legislative  proposal.  The  planned  Green  Paper  on  default  (in  absentia) 
judgments  was  not  adopted  and  was  superseded  by  the  above-mentioned  Member  States' 
initiative for a Framework Decision on the subject324. 

The Commission has published reports on the implementation of a number of measures, such 
as  the  second  and  third  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision  on  the 
standing  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings325.  In  the  first  report  published  in  2004326,  the 
Commission concluded that transposition of the Framework Decision was not satisfactory. In 
the  2009  report,  the  Commission  concluded  that  implementation  was  still  patchy,  partly 
because the Framework Decision's provisions lack precision. The Commission therefore plans 
to introduce a proposal in 2009 to amend the Framework Decision. 

Eurojust 

During  the  period  of  implementation  of  the  Hague  Programme,  Eurojust  has  been  assessed 
and  its  contribution  in  furthering  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  has  been  highlighted.  The 
second report on the legal transposition of the Council Decision setting up Eurojust (included 
in  the  Communication  on  the  future  of  Eurojust)  was  adopted  in  2007327.  It  underlines  the 
positive  results  achieved  by  Eurojust:  "Eurojust’s  operational  record  is  a  positive  one.  In 
2006, 771 operational cases were registered. This represents an increase of 31% over the year 
2005. The quality and speed of the handling of cases are generally recognised". At the same 
time, the Commission recognised that "the development of Eurojust needs to be accompanied 
by  a  clarification  and  reinforcement  of  the  powers  of  the  national  members  and  by  greater 
authority  for  the  College.  In  order  to  achieve  this  objective,  the  Decision  ought  to  be 
amended" and proposed possible changes. This report was followed up by the Member States 
who presented an initiative in 2008328 with a view of adopting a new decision on Eurojust. In 

320 
321 

322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 

COM(2005) 696 final. 
Initiative of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic 
and  of  the  Kingdom  of  Sweden  for  a  Council  Framework  Decision  2009/…/JHA  on  prevention  and 
settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, OJ C 39, 18.2.2009, p. 2. 
COM(2004) 328 final. 
COM(2006)174 final. 
See footnotes 339 and 340. 
COM(2009) 166 final. 
COM(2004) 54 final/2. 
COM(2007) 644 final. 
Initiative  of  the  Kingdom  of  Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  the  Republic  of  Estonia,  the  Kingdom  of 
Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
December  2008,  the  Council  adopted  a  decision  on  the  strengthening  of  Eurojust  and 
amending  Council  Decision  setting  up  Eurojust  in  a  bid  to  step  up  the  fight  against  serious 
crime329. The main changes in the new decision include greater powers of national members 
and of the College, and establish a rapid reaction cell to deal with the most urgent cases. 

It should be noticed three cooperation agreements between Eurojust and third countries have 
entered  into  force  in  recent  years  (Norway,  Iceland  and  USA),  whereas  a  further  two  were 
concluded but were still not in force at the end of 2008 (Croatia and Switzerland).. Moreover, 
22 third countries have designed national contact points with Eurojust330.  

Other instruments in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters 

Other supplementary instruments were envisaged in the Hague package in support of judicial 
cooperation  in  criminal  matters.  For  example,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  prosecution  of  road 
traffic  offences,  in  2008  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  aimed  at 
facilitating the cross-border enforcement of traffic offences through technical measures331 to 
enable EU drivers to be identified and thus sanctioned for offences committed in a Member 
State other than the one where the vehicle is registered. The proposal seeks to make it easier 
to  deal  with  cross-border  offences  within  the  EU  by  way  of  a  European  network  for  the 
electronic exchange of data.  

On  the  other  hand,  following  an  impact  assessment  carried  out  in  2007332,  the  scheduled 
proposal on the protection of witnesses and collaborators with justice was not tabled, since it 
was considered not advisable at present to proceed with legislation of this sort at EU level. 

The Decision establishing a specific financial programme on "Criminal Justice" was adopted 
in  2007333,  with  a  budget  of  around  €  200  million  a llocated  for  the  period  2007-2013.  It  is 
premature  to  assess  its  real  impact,  as  the  first  set  of  projects  financed  is  still  underway.  A 
mid-term evaluation of the programme will take place in 2011. 

International legal order 

The conclusion and discussion of international agreements also made for closer cooperation in 
on  criminal  matters.  One  of  the  main  developments  was  the  inclusion  of  provisions  on 
counter-terrorist  assistance  in  the  proposed  revision  of  existing  instruments  governing 
external assistance: in 2004 the European Council called on the Commission “to mainstream 

Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of 
Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Council Decision 
of … on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA, OJ C 54, 27.2.2008, p. 4. 
The  Decision  was  adopted  by  the  Council  on  16.12.2008,  but  it  has  not  been  published  yet  on  the 
Official Journal. 
Albania,  Argentina,  Bosnia-Herzegovina,  Croatia,  Canada,  FYROM,  Iceland,  Israel,  Japan, 
Liechtenstein,  Moldova,  Mongolia  (official  letter  of  appointment  not  yet  received),  Montenegro, 
Norway, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, USA (cut-off date: April 
2008). 
COM(2008) 151 final.  
COM(2007) 693 final. 
See footnote 327. 

329 

330 

331 
332 
333 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
counter-terrorism objectives into external assistance programmes”334 and the Commission has 
been  working  with  country  and  regional  desks  in  order  to  introduce  counter-terrorism 
objectives  into  country  and  regional  strategy  papers  and  action  plans.  The  result  has  so  far 
been mixed: the number of occurrences of counter-terrorism-related objectives in such texts 
has increased but this is not yet systematic. Moreover, the United Nations Convention against 
Corruption  was  concluded  in  2008,  thanks  to  the  Council  Decision  on  the  conclusion,  on 
behalf of the European Community, of the United Nations Convention against Corruption335. 
A number of other international agreements are under discussion, e.g. the agreement between 
the EU and Liechtenstein on extradition and the agreements between the EU and Norway and 
Iceland on mutual legal assistance. The conclusion on behalf of the EC of the United Nations 
Protocol  against  the  illicit  manufacturing  of  and  trafficking  in  firearms,  their  parts  and 
components,  and  ammunition  needs  to  await  implementation  of  relevant  EC  legislation, 
notably Directive 91/577 and the Regulation on an export/import licensing system. 

III. 

Future challenges 

Mutual recognition 

Instruments  based  on  the  mutual  recognition  principle  have  not  yet  been  adopted  in  some 
areas. In criminal matters, obtaining evidence is a point of concern, it is only partly covered 
by these instruments. Indeed, the Framework Decision on freezing orders and the Framework 
Decision  on  the  EAW  only  apply  to  obtaining  existing  evidence,  such  as  objects  or 
documents. Other forms of obtaining evidence, such as statements from suspects or witnesses 
or  expert  statements,  are  still  covered  by  traditional  mutual  assistance  instruments. 
Practitioners  regard  this  as  a  problem  because  they  have  to  use  different  instruments  with 
different  requirements  and  forms.  New  legislation  should  be  based  on  experience  with 
existing instruments, should give added value and should be easy to use for practitioners.  

Disqualification  is  an  area  in  which  Member  States'  rules  vary  substantially.  A  careful 
analysis of the situation is needed before any legislation in this area is proposed. In any case, 
work will need to be done in this area to prevent that, for example, a person disqualified in 
one  Member  State  from  working  with  children  because  of  sex  offences  could  get  a  job 
working with children in another Member State if disqualification is not recognised.  

Another  area  in  need  of  exploration  will  be  mutual  recognition  of  judicial  or  administrative 
decisions  granting  protection  to  people  at  risk  of  intimidation,  threat  or  violence  such  as 
witnesses. 

Considering  the  large  number  of  existing  mutual  recognition  instruments,  the  need  to 
consolidate approaches and instruments will emerge. 

The Commission commissioned a study in 2008336 that demonstrates that mutual recognition 
of judgments is easier to apply than pre-trial decisions. In addition, the study identifies four 

334 

335 

336 

EN 

"Declaration 

on 
European  Council 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/79637.pdf. 
Council Decision 2008/801/EC on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the United 
Nations Convention against Corruption, OJ L 287, 29.10.2008. 
See footnote 320. 

terrorism", 

25.3.2004, 

combating 

available 

at: 

95 

   EN 

 
                                                 
main gaps in the mutual recognition system in the following areas: exercising the rights of the 
defence, future of the European evidence warrant, coordination of prosecutions and future of 
the  EU  criminal  justice  policy.  The  study  also  identified  other  horizontal  methodological 
problems  concerning  negotiations  of  instruments,  transposition  and  application  of  mutual 
recognition in practice.  

Approximation of law 

With  experience  it  has  become  clear  that  approximation  is  a  necessary  companion  and 
requirement for mutual recognition to work. The more Member States' legislation is aligned, 
the easier it will be to achieve true mutual recognition. This applies both to substantive law 
and to procedural law.  

In the area of criminal law, grounds for refusal are to be introduced in areas where differences 
in  legislation  may  pose  problems  for  the  Member  State  which  is  to  recognise  and  execute 
judgments  or  decisions.  Examples  are  national  rules  on  judgments  rendered  in  absentia, 
detention standards for prisoners, the ne bis in idem principle and the age of criminal liability. 
Priority should be given to the further approximation of serious cross-border crimes. If there 
were fewer differences between Member States in how these matters were dealt with, it would 
be much easier for the judicial systems to cooperate. Mutual trust should also be enhanced by 
the  adoption  of  common  minimum  standards  for  fair  trial  rights  and  for  the  protection  of 
victims of crime. 

Furthermore, diverging rules on admissibility of evidence may lead to an undesirable situation 
where  evidence  lawfully  gathered  in  one  Member  State  cannot  be  used  in  criminal 
proceedings  in  another.  This  issue  should  be  explored  in  the  future  (a  Green  Paper  will  be 
issued on this matter).  

Eurojust 

Over  the  next  few  years,  special  attention  should  be  paid  to  proper  implementation  of  the 
Council  Decisions  on  the  reform  of  Eurojust  and  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in 
Criminal  Matters.  The  use  of  these  two  bodies  by  national  practitioners  will  need  to  be 
promoted.  

Particular attention will be paid to the promotion of specific financing programmes and to the 
development of the European Judicial Network website. 

International legal order 

The  external  dimension  of  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  should  be  deepened 
through  the  conclusion  of  new  extradition  and  mutual  assistance  agreements  with  countries 
belonging  to  strategic  regions.  This  could  be  assisted  by  practitioners'  forum  with  third 
countries, where practical implementation problems could be discussed. 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
5.4. 

Judicial cooperation in civil matters  

I. 

Objectives  

The principle of mutual recognition of judgments is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in 
civil matters. It allows a judgment given in a court in one Member State to be recognised and 
enforced in another with a minimum of procedural steps. For individuals and companies to be 
able  to  exercise  their  rights  in  full  wherever  they  might  be  in  the  European  Union,  any 
incompatibilities  between  judicial  and  administrative  systems  in  the  various  Member  States 
need to be removed, with the ultimate goal of abolishing "exequatur". 

At the 1999 Tampere European Council, EU leaders acknowledged the importance of further 
enhancing judicial cooperation in civil matters and set precise priorities for action. The Justice 
and Home affairs Council adopted a programme of measures in 2000 for implementation of 
the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters337. 

Along the same lines, the Hague Programme called for the facilitation of civil law procedure 
across  borders,  mutual  recognition  of  decisions,  enhanced  cooperation,  more  coherence  and 
quality in EU legislation and greater consistency with the international legal order. 

II. 

Main developments  

Facilitating civil law procedure across borders  

The  facilitation  of  cross-border  procedures  implies  the  continuous  development  of  judicial 
cooperation  in  civil  matters  and  completion  of  the  2000  programme  of  mutual  recognition. 
Borders between countries in Europe should no longer be an obstacle to the settlement of civil 
law matters or to the bringing of court proceedings and the enforcement of decisions in civil 
matters. 

Community initiatives therefore aimed to ensure that all EU citizens have the same access to 
justice  throughout  the  EU.  Without  a  genuine  area  of  justice,  where  people  can  approach 
courts and authorities in any Member State as easily as in their own, EU citizens cannot fully 
benefit  from  freedom  of  movement.  Judgments  and  decisions  should  be  respected  and 
enforced  throughout  the  Union,  while  safeguarding  the  basic  legal  certainty  of  people  and 
economic operators. Greater compatibility and more convergence between the legal systems 
of Member States must be achieved. 

Ready access to justice also makes it easier to obtain justice across borders. A 2003 directive 
aims to ensure minimum standards on legal aid for citizens involved in cross-border cases338, 
who are often faced with a barrage of difficulties (not least language and costs) when it comes 
to defending their rights in another Member State. Furthermore, a 2004 directive relating to 

337 

338 

Draft programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in 
civil and commercial matters, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1.  
Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes 
by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, OJ L 26, 31.1.2003, p. 
41. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
                                                 
compensation  to  crime  victims339  provides  that  each  Member  State  should  have  a  national 
scheme  in  place  which  guarantees  fair  and  appropriate  compensation  to  victims  of  crime, 
whether  or  not  they  are  citizens  of  that  State.  Moreover,  the  directive  ensures  that 
compensation is readily accessible in practice regardless of where in the EU a person becomes 
the victim of a crime, by creating a system for cooperation between national authorities. The 
2009 report on the application of the directive on compensation to crime victims340 shows that 
Member  States  provide  fair  and  appropriate  compensation  for  victims  of  violent  intentional 
crimes. As far as the procedural aspects of the directive are concerned, the reports show that 
the  Deciding  and  Assisting  Authorities  and  the  claimants  have  different  perceptions,  the 
former being more positive about the way it operates than the latter. It is also confirmed that 
implementation  of  the  directive  needed  to  be  improved,  although  without  amending  the 
directive,  particularly  in  four  main  areas:  data  collection  on  the  application  of  the  directive; 
better  information  for  citizens;  compliance  with  language  requirements;  and  greater 
transparency and clarity. 
More  recently,  the  mediation  directive341,  which  applies  also  to  family  law,  encourages 
citizens  to  turn  to  mediation  to  settle  their  disputes,  where  possible,  and  tries  to  establish  a 
sound relationship between civil procedures and alternative means of dispute resolution. EU 
Member States will have until 21 May 2011 to bring into force the necessary laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions to comply with this new directive. 

Mutual recognition of decisions 

Much progress has been made during the period of the Hague Programme in the area of civil 
justice. Most of the instruments provided for in the Hague package have been adopted, which 
has helped to achieve its objectives. 

A  large  number  of  legislative  measures  implementing  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition 
have  been  agreed  since  1999,  which  have  helped  to  usher  in  the  basic  principle  of  cross-
border mutual recognition, a unique achievement in the world. Directly applicable regulations 
in the field of civil law advise citizens and businesses involved in cross-border legal disputes 
on which courts have jurisdiction and what rules apply to the recognition of a judgment given 
in  another  Member  State  (Brussels  I  regulation)342.  Matrimonial  disputes  and  questions  of 
parental responsibility have also been covered343 (the Brussels II (a) regulation replacing the 
Brussels II regulation344).  

339 

340 
341 

342 

343 

344 

Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, OJ L 261, 
6.8.2004, p. 15. 
COM(2009) 170 final. 
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects 
of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24.5.2008, p. 3. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  44/2001  of  22  December  2000  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2201/2003  of  27  November  2003  concerning  jurisdiction  and  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  matrimonial  matters  and  the  matters  of  parental 
responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1347/2000  of  29  May  2000  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children 
of both spouses, OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 19. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  ultimate  goal  of  the  mutual  recognition  programme  is  that  a  judgment  obtained  in  one 
Member  State  should  be  recognized  and  enforceable  in  another  Member  State  without  the 
need  for  any  intermediate  procedures  to  declare  that  the  foreign  judgment  is  enforceable 
("exequatur"). Mutual recognition of decisions is an effective means of protecting the rights 
of citizens and business, and securing the enforcement of such rights across European borders. 
The priority of completing the 2000 programme by 2011 led to the adoption of instruments on 
conflict  of  laws  rules  regarding  non-contractual  obligations  ("Rome  II")345  and  contractual 
obligations ("Rome I")346, which specify which legal system is competent without the need to 
harmonise  substantive  law.  The  effectiveness  of  existing  instruments  on  mutual  recognition 
was  increased  by  standardising  procedures  and  documents,  such  as  the  European  Order  for 
Payment347 and the European Small Claims Procedure348, and developing minimum standards 
for aspects of procedural law, such as the service of judicial and extra-judicial documents349.  

In family law, implementation of the regulation concerning matrimonial matters and parental 
responsibility  (Brussels  II(a))  ensured  that  children  can  maintain  regular  contact  with  both 
parents following a separation and provides clear rules to deter child abduction throughout the 
EU. Furthermore, a 2009 regulation will ensure swift and efficient recovery of maintenance 
obligations  in  the  EU350.  The  Commission  was  also  invited  to  submit  green  papers  on 
successions351  (a  legislative  proposal  on  successions  and  wills  is  expected  to  be  adopted  in 
2009  in  a  bid  to  help  solve  the  complex  problems  currently  involved  in  a  transnational 
succession),  matrimonial  property  regimes352,  and  divorce  (Rome  III)353.  Rules  on  uniform 
substantive law should only be introduced as an accompanying measure, whenever necessary.  

The  European  Enforcement  Order354,  which  allows  citizens  to  obtain  quick  and  efficient 
enforcement  of  uncontested  claims,  has  been  one  of  the  instruments  used  to  facilitate 
procedures that are optional to national procedures. The Regulation establishing a European 
Payment  Order  procedure  adopted  in  2006355  and  the  European  Small  Claims  Procedure 
(under € 2,000) adopted in 2007 356 were also along these lines. These new procedures aim to 
simplify  and  speed  up  litigations  concerning  uncontested  claims  and  small  claims  in  cross-

345 

346 

347 

348 

349 

350 

351 
352 
353 
354 

355 
356 

Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the 
law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40. 
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the 
law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. 
Regulation  (EC)  No 1896/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12 December 2006 
creating a European order for payment procedure, OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  861/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 July  2007 
establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 1. 
Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial 
and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 37. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition 
and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L 7, 
10.1.2009, p. 1. 
COM(2005) 65 final. 
COM(2006) 400 final. 
COM(2005) 82 final. 
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating 
a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 15. 
See footnote 384. 
See footnote 385. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
                                                 
border situations. The regulations became applicable between the end 2008 and the beginning 
2009, and thus there as yet not information regarding their practical application.  

Further preparatory work has started on how to improve the enforcement of judgments in the 
EU357.  

Regulations relating to the service of documents in cross-border cases358 and concerning the 
taking  of  evidence  in  civil  and  commercial  matters359  have  been  adopted  in  the  area  of 
cooperation  between  the  Member  States.  The  previously  mentioned  decision  establishing  a 
European judicial network in civil and commercial matters should also be mentioned in this 
connection. 

With regard to financial programmes, a decision establishing a specific programme on "Civil 
Justice" was adopted in 2007360. It is premature to assess its real impact, as the first series of 
projects financed are still ongoing. A mid-term evaluation of the programme will take place in 
2011. 

Enhancing cooperation 

For  these  instruments  involving  the  cooperation  of  judicial  or  other  bodies  to  operate 
smoothly, Member States should designate liaison judges or other competent authorities based 
in their own countries. Where appropriate, they could use their national contact point within 
the  EJNCCM.  The  Commission  was  asked  to  organise  EU  workshops  on  the  application  of 
EU  law  and  promote  cooperation  between  members  of  the  legal  professions  with  a  view  to 
establishing best practice. 

Close  cooperation  and  direct  contacts  between  the  courts  speed  up  cross-border  judicial 
proceedings.  The  main  areas  of  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  where 
the Community has facilitated the life of judges are the service of documents and the taking of 
evidence. 

In November 2008, the aforementioned regulation on the service of judicial and extrajudicial 
documents (service of documents) replaced the 2000 Council regulation on the same matters 
and further clarified and streamlined procedures. It is too early to assess its impact, however. 

The  entry  into  force  in  2004  of  the  aforementioned  regulation  on  the  taking  of  evidence 
generally  appears  to  have  improved,  simplified  and  accelerated  cooperation  between  the 
courts on the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. The regulation has achieved 
its  two  main  objectives,  firstly  of  simplifying  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  and 

357 

358 

359 

360 

COM(2008)  128 final,  Green  Paper  "Effective  enforcement  of judgments  in  the  European  Union:  the 
transparency  of  debtors’  assets";  COM(2006)  618  final,  "Green  Paper  on  improving  the  efficiency  of 
the enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts". 
Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 
on  the  service  in  the  Member  States  of  judicial  and  extrajudicial  documents  in  civil  or  commercial 
matters  (service  of  documents),  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1348/2000,  OJ  L  324, 
10.12.2007, p. 79 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1206/2001  of  28 May  2001  on  cooperation  between  the  courts  of  the 
Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1. 
See footnote 326. 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
                                                 
secondly  of  accelerating  the  taking  of  evidence,  to  a  relatively  satisfactory  extent. 
Simplification  has  been  brought  about  mainly  by  the  introduction  of  direct  court-to-court 
transmission (although requests are still sometimes or even often sent to central bodies) and 
by the introduction of standard forms. Most requests for the taking of evidence are executed 
faster  than  before.  Finally,  a  practical  guide  for  legal  practitioners  should  convince  them  of 
the benefits of direct taking of evidence, an important innovation of the regulation. 

As a result of the conclusions of the report on the EJNCCM361, the Commission presented a 
proposal amending the founding decision in 2008362. Its aim is to provide the Network with 
the  means  of  establishing  itself  as  the  key  instrument  of  cooperation  between  civil  justice 
stakeholders within the European law enforcement area. The proposal followed wide-ranging 
consultation of the members of the network, the other institutions and civil society. It aims to 
strengthen  the  role  of  the  contact  points,  which  are  the  cornerstone  of  the  network,  and  to 
ensure  more  effective  practical  application  by  judges  and  other  members  of  the  legal 
profession of the numerous instruments adopted  since 2002 in the field of civil justice. The 
proposal also sets out to open the Network to the legal professions directly involved in civil 
judicial cooperation, to help it achieve its objectives more effectively. In addition, the tasks of 
the  network  would  be  extended  to  improve  the  information  available,  both  to  the  public  on 
their rights and to the judiciary on the content of the laws of other Member States. Finally, in 
order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Hague  Programme  as  regards  improving  judicial 
cooperation  and  citizens'  access  to  justice,  the  proposal  gives  the  Network  a  revised  legal 
framework,  a  more  effective  form  of  organisation  and  greater  means  to  consolidate  its 
position within the European area of justice as the lynchpin of cooperation between everyone 
involved  in  civil  justice.  The  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  reached  political 
agreement  on  the  proposal  on  first  reading  in  December  2008.  The  amending  decision  is 
expected to be adopted in 2009. 

Ensuring coherence and upgrading the quality of EU legislation 

Improving the quality of EU legislation is a permanent objective of the Commission. 

As far as codification is concerned, the Commission launched a consultation procedure on the 
acquis  review  concerning  the  common  frame  of  reference  in  the  field  of  EU  consumer 
contract law363.  

In  matters  of  contract  law,  the  quality  of  existing  and  future  Community  law  should  be 
improved by measures to consolidate, codificate and streamline the legal instruments in force 
and  by  developing  a  common  frame  of  reference.  The  Common  Frame  of  Reference  (CFR) 
work on consumer contract law issues, together with the results of other preparatory work, has 
served  as  a  starting  point  for  the  above-mentioned  Green  Paper  on  the  acquis  review. 
Moreover, in 2007 the draft CFR prepared by the Study Group on a European Civil Code and 
the Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group) was delivered to the Commission and 
later presented to the European Parliament.  

International legal order 

361 
362 
363 

COM(2006) 203 final. 
COM(2008) 380 final. 
COM(2006) 744 final. 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  external  dimension  of  cooperation  in  civil  matters  focuses  on  building  judicial 
cooperation on the basis of existing multilateral instruments and, consequently, promoting the 
accession of third countries to relevant international conventions in civil and commercial area, 
many of which were drawn up by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. 

The Commission  and the Hague Conference on Private International Law  cooperate closely 
on subjects of common interest. In 2006, the Council adopted a decision on the accession of 
the  Community  to  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  Law  (HCCH)364  and  actual  accession 
took place in April 2007. The Commission proposed in September 2008 that the Community 
should sign the 2005 Hague Convention on the Choice of Courts Agreements365. In February 
2009, the Commission presented a proposal for the conclusion by the EC of the Protocol on 
the  Law  Applicable  to  Maintenance  Obligations  (the  so-called  "Hague  Protocol"  on 
applicable law in maintenance issues)366. 

The  Commission  enhanced  the  adoption  of  common  international  rules  on  parental 
responsibility  and  child  protection  by  encouraging  Member  States  to  apply  the  Hague 
Convention of 19 October 1996 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and 
cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children. It 
also  encouraged  Member  States  to  sign  the  Hague  Convention  on  the  international  legal 
protection of vulnerable adults. Furthermore, the Commission has been active at international 
level  to  improve  the  application  of  the  1980  Hague  Convention  on  the  Civil  Aspects  of 
International  Child  Abduction.  Finally,  in  the  field  of  family  law,  the  Commission  has  put 
forward a proposal for signing the 2003 Convention of the Council of Europe on contacts with 
children. 

The new Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil  and  Commercial  Matters  concluded  by  the  Community  and  Norway,  Iceland  and 
Switzerland was signed on 30 October 2007. On the basis of a Commission proposal367, the 
Council decided in November 2008 to conclude the Convention368. 

There  have  also  been  significant  developments  in  the  accession  of  Denmark  to  judicial 
cooperation (Brussels I, service of documents)369 and in 2009 the Commission has proposed 
amendments to the Council Decisions concerning the agreements with Denmark370. 

Acting on the basis of Commission proposals, the Community has concluded the UNIDROIT 
Convention  on  International  Interests  and  its  Aircraft  Protocol  adopted  in  Cap  Town  in 

364 

365 
366 
367 
368 
369 

370 

Council  Decision  2006/719/EC  of  5 October  2006  on  the  accession  of  the  Community  to  the  Hague 
Conference on Private International Law, OJ L 297, 26.10.2006, p. 1. 
COM(2008) 538 final. 
COM(2009) 81 final. 
COM(2008) 116 final. 
The Community deposited instruments of approval on 18.5.2009. 
Council Decision 2006/325/EC of 27 April 2006 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between 
the  European  Community  and  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters,  OJ  L  120,  5.5.2006,  p.  22  and  Council 
Decision  2006/326/EC  of  27  April  2006  concerning  the  conclusion  of  the  Agreement  between  the 
European  Community  and  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark  on  the  service  of  judicial  and  extrajudicial 
documents in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 120, 5.5.2006, p. 23.  
COM(2009) 100 final and COM(2009) 101 final. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
                                                 
November 2001371; moreover, the Commission has proposed that the Community would sign 
the Rail Protocol372. 

III. 

Future challenges 

Completing  the  mutual  recognition  programme  and  facilitating  the  life  of  citizens  in 
administrative and judicial area 

Abolishing  the  exequatur  procedure  will  remain  the  overall  objective  to  be  achieved  in  the 
years to come. 

As  regards  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters,  some  areas  are  not  yet  covered  by  mutual 
recognition  instruments,  although  they  may  be  covered  by  the  Hague  Conventions  (for 
example, presumption of death or vulnerable adults). The property consequences of marriage 
are  excluded  from  the  existing  legal  framework,  but,  with  the  free  movement  of  persons, 
increasingly couples come from different Member States, marry abroad, and/or have property 
in different Member States, making it difficult to make arrangements in the event of divorce 
or  separation.  The  area  of  wills  and  succession  is  still  not  covered  by  the  existing  mutual 
recognition rules, which means, for example, that a person recognised as the beneficiary of a 
will in one Member State may not be recognised as such in another Member State. The same 
goes for matrimonial property regimes.  

An additional area not yet covered by EU instruments on mutual recognition is that of civil 
status acts (birth, marriage and partnership, changing name and death). This is linked to the 
problem of non-recognition of so-called "authentic acts". If, for example, a birth certificate –
an essential prerequisite to obtaining an identity card, social security, the right to vote, etc.– 
issued in one Member State is not legally recognised in another, the problems for that person 
and the negative consequences for his freedom of movement and residence rights are evident. 

An additional and substantive step towards complete abolition of the exequatur procedure in 
civil and commercial law should be to make it easier for individuals and businesses to enforce 
judgments in their favour, thus improving effective access to justice and the functioning of the 
internal  market.  For  this  purpose,  the  Commission  presented  in  2009  a  report  on  the 
application  of  the  Brussels  I  Regulation373  accompanied  by  a  Green  Paper  on  the  possible 
review of the regulation374.  

Mutual  recognition  might  also  consist  of  approximating  substantive  law  in  certain  areas: 
minimum  standards  for  protective  and  provisional  measures  and  standards  for  decisions 
relating to parental responsibility should be further explored. 

Considering  the  growing  mobility  of  European  citizens,  better  instruments  are  needed  for 
them  to  have  easy  and  effective  access  to  justice  wherever  in  the  EU.  Against  this 
background, the question of the cost of justice acquires additional importance, as do linguistic 

371 
372 
373 
374 

COM(2008) 508 final. 
COM(2009) 94 final. 
COM(2009) 174 final. 
COM(2009) 175 final. 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  technical  problems  in  transnational  cases.  The  progress  of  new  technologies  and  the 
development of e-Justice can be helpful in this respect. 

Improving enforcement 

Two Green Papers have been presented on the matter of improvement of enforcement: one on 
effective  enforcement  of  judicial  decisions  through  the  creation  of  better  rules  concerning 
bank  attachments,  and  another  on  the  effective  enforcement  of  judgments  in  the  European 
Union  concerning  the  transparency  of  debtors’  assets.  Following  on  from  these,  further 
initiatives  should  be  taken  to  simplify  people's  lives  when  they  have  to  complete 
administrative formalities. 

There should also be concrete follow-up of the study on enforcement in the area of parental 
responsibility, so as to improve the practical enforcement of judgements relating for instance 
to custody, and thus help families in difficult circumstances to adapt to the new legal situation 
more efficiently and rapidly. 

Ensuring coherence and upgrading the quality of EU legislation 

In  matters  of  contract  law,  the  quality  of  existing  and  future  Community  law  should  be 
improved by measures to consolidate, codify and streamline the legal instruments in force and 
by developing a common frame of reference. A framework should be set up to explore ways 
of developing EU-wide standard terms and conditions of contract law, which could be used by 
companies and trade associations in the European Union.  

As to the shape of the future framework, the idea was mooted that it should be designed as a 
"toolbox". The EU should continue to discuss the issue of consumer contract law in order to 
develop a "toolbox" to be used as a non-binding guide containing definitions of legal terms, 
fundamental principles and model rules of contract law. 

A  framework  should  also  be  set  up  to  explore  ways  of  developing  EU-wide  standard  terms 
and conditions of contract law which  could be used by companies and trade associations in 
the EU. 

In  the  light  of  the  better  regulation  agenda  and  the  now  large  number  of  existing  mutual 
recognition instruments, consolidation should be pursued in an effort to make the overall legal 
framework more accessible. 

Improved implementation and evaluation of civil justice acquis 

The implementation of the acquis is constantly monitored. 

The  EJNCCM  play  an  important  role  in  improving,  simplifying  and  accelerating  judicial 
cooperation  between  Member  States.  The  Commission's  proposal  to  amend  the  Decision 
establishing the EJNCCM will provide the Network with an updated legal framework, a more 
effective  form  of  organisation  and  increased  resources  to  make  it  a  key  instrument  of 
cooperation  within  the  European  area  of  justice  between  all  civil  justice  stakeholders.  The 
Network  will  be  open  to  all  legal  professions  directly  concerned  with  civil  judicial 
cooperation,  thus  improving  information  on  and  proper  application  of  the  Community 
instruments.  

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
Monitoring and evaluation in civil justice should be stepped up, as previously mentioned for 
the field of justice as a whole.  

Full use of external competencies in the area of international cooperation 

Since the 2006 opinion of the EJC on the Lugano convention375, it has been confirmed that the 
Community has exclusive powers in those areas of civil justice cooperation. The consequence 
is that the Community has to become an important international player and policy-maker in 
these  issues.  Four  aspects  must  be  considered  for  the  application  of  these  external  powers: 
developing  a  global  EC  policy  on  international  private  law  as  a  member  of  the  Hague 
Conference; ensuring the coherence of multilateral international agreements with EC rules on 
civil justice; proposing and negotiating bilateral agreements in particular on recognition and 
enforcement,  priority  given  to  relations  with  countries  of  the  European  Economic  Area, 
candidate  countries,  Stabilisation  and  Association  countries  and  the  main  international 
partners like; and managing the procedure of authorizing the Member States to have bilateral 
agreements with third countries in certain areas of civil justice. 

375 

Opinion 1/03 pursuant to Article 300(6) EC. 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

I. 

EXTERNAL DIMENSION 

Objectives  

The  Hague  Programme  mandated 
the  Secretary-General/High 
Representative to submit a strategy to the Council, by the end of 2005, covering all external 
aspects of EU policy on freedom, security and justice. Further to a Communication from the 
Commission376,  a  "Strategy  for  the  external  dimension  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice" 
(hereinafter "the Strategy") was endorsed by the Council in December 2005377.  

the  Commission  and 

The  Strategy  set  out  a  series  of  thematic  priorities:  counter-terrorism,  organised  crime, 
corruption,  drugs  and  managing  migration  flows,  as  along  with  a  number  of  underlying 
principles  and  delivery  mechanisms378.  These  thematic  priorities  were  also  identified  as  the 
key threats in the European Security Strategy (ESS) of December 2003379, which was backed 
up by the "Report on Implementation of the European Security Strategy - Providing Security 
in  a  Changing  World"380.  A  further  goal  of  the  Strategy  was  to  advance  the  EU's  external 
relations objectives by promoting the rule of law, respect for human rights and international 
obligations. 

The  Strategy  provided  for  18-monthly  progress  reports  by  the  Commission  and  the  Council 
General  Secretariat.  The  Commission  and  the  Council  Secretariat  issued  progress  reports  in 
November 2006381 and May 2008382. 

II. 

Main developments   

II.1.  Thematic dimension 

The second progress report on the implementation of the Strategy recorded a steady increase 
in  the  size,  quality  and  importance  of  external  relations  in  the  area  of  freedom,  security 
and justice. Major initiatives have been taken in the field of migration, asylum, movement of 
persons  and  border  management,  protection  of  fundamental  rights,  protection  of  personal 
data, counter-terrorism and law enforcement and judicial cooperation. 

In line with the Strategy, three of the five originally planned Action Oriented Papers (AOPs) 
have been adopted so far: the AOP on improving cooperation on organised crime, corruption, 

376 
377 
378 

379 
380 
381 

382 

COM(2005) 491 final. 
Council document 14366/3/05 rev 3. 
Work  in  partnership  with  third  countries,  promote  international  standards,  differentiated  and  flexible 
approach,  importance  of  working  with  EU's  neighbours,  use  broad  range  of  instruments  across  the 
pillars, Member States to mobilise resources alongside Commission - complementarity, monitoring and 
evaluation. 
Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=266&lang=EN. 
Council document 17104/08. 
SEC(2006) 1498, "Progress report on the implementation of the Strategy for the External Dimension of 
JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice". 
SEC(2008)  1971,  "Second  progress  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  for  the  External 
Dimension of JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice". 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
                                                 
illegal  immigration  and  counter-terrorism  between  the  EU  and  the  Western  Balkans383;  the 
AOP  on  increasing  EU  support  for  combating  drugs  production  in  and  trafficking  from 
Afghanistan384;  and  the  AOP  on  implementing  with  Russia  the  common  space  of  freedom, 
security and justice385. 

The Council General Secretariat produced two progress reports on the state of implementation 
of  the  Western  Balkans  AOP386  and  one  on  the  Russia  AOP387.  As  regards  the  former,  the 
reports noted progress on activities and cooperation between the relevant Member States, EU 
bodies, other players and Western Balkan countries. At the same time, it deplored the limited 
response  by  Member  States  (only  19  of  the  27  provided  contributions  to  the  report),  which 
substantially limits the scope and seriously undermines the value of the exercise. The report 
on  the  Russia  AOP  highlighted  the  good  progress  made  on  the  movement  of  persons, 
migration  and  border  issues,  while  stressing  that  cooperation  on  justice  matters  could  be 
enhanced.  It  also  suggested  that  some  security  issues  (e.g.  money  laundering)  had  received 
noticeably more attention than others (e.g. trafficking in human beings) and that the use of the 
liaison  officers  network  could  be  put  to  greater  use.  Again,  the  value  of  the  report  was 
diminished by the fact that only 17 Member States provided contributions. 

II.2.  Geographical dimension 

General 

Key elements of the Strategy have been implemented through the enlargement process, the 
Stabilisation and Association Process with the Western Balkans, the revised action plan on 
Justice and Home Affairs with Ukraine388 and the European Neighbourhood Policy Action 
Plans  with  other  countries389.  Under  the  Black  Sea  Synergy390  the  EU  has  also  launched  a 
number of initiatives related to migration and the fight against organised crime.  

There has been an upturn in overall JLS cooperation with the Mediterranean countries since 
11  September  2001  and  the  gradual  introduction  of  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  action 
plans, with their solid JLS component even though JLS subjects remain domestically sensitive 
issues.  At  regional  level,  the  EUROMED/Barcelona  process  contains  an  important  JLS 
component,  notably  with  the  adoption  at  the  Barcelona  Summit  in  2005  of  a  5-year  action 
plan391, including JLS matters, as well as a Code of conduct on terrorism392. The EUROMED 
programme  (migration,  police,  justice)  has  contributed  to  the  implementation  of  policies  in 
this  field.  Building  on  the  Barcelona  process,  the  Union  for  the  Mediterranean  has  been 

383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 

392 

Council document 9306/06 JAI 248. 
Council document 9305/06. 
Council document 15534/1/06 rev 1. 
Council document 15736/06 and 8827/2/08. 
Council document 16303/1/08. 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/action_plans/ukraine_enp_ap_jls-rev_en.pdf. 
The Action Plans are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/documents_en.htm. 
COM(2007) 160 final. 
Available 
8FE7672ED397/0/EUROMEDWorkProgrFINAL28NOV.pdf. 
Available 
0CAA7D03D187/0/EUROMEDCodeConductFINAL28NOV.pdf. 

at: 

at: 

http://www.euromedbarcelona.org/NR/rdonlyres/3F64E0D6-A00F-45E5-88C2-

http://www.euromedbarcelona.org/NR/rdonlyres/E364270B-58D7-44A5-B58D-

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
                                                 
launched  with  a  view  to  increasing  the  potential  for  cooperation  with  the  Mediterranean 
partners. 

The Eastern Partnership is taking shape, the Commission presenting  a Communication in 
2008393  containing  specific  proposals,  notably  the  establishments  of  Mobility  and  Security 
Pacts to facilitate the movement of people accompanied by effective reforms in the security 
sector of these countries. Cooperation has also been stepped up with strategic partners such as 
Russia,  the  United  States  and  Brazil,  and  also  with  Africa,  China,  India  and  Latin 
America. 

In many of these regions and countries, the Commission is funding programmes and projects 
under the respective external aid instruments, in areas such as migration or police and justice 
reform, which also contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the external dimension 
of the EU policy on freedom, security and justice. 

Enlargement agenda 

The enlargement process and the alignment of candidate countries on EU standards continue. 
Law enforcement, independence of the judiciary and rule of law are important components of 
the  discussions.  Given  the  rapid  expansion  of  the  JLS  acquis,  it  has  now  been  divided  into 
two chapters for the purpose of negotiations: chapter 23 on "judiciary and fundamental rights" 
and chapter 24 on "justice, freedom and security". 

The  Stabilisation  and  Association  Agreement  with  Croatia  entered  into  force  in  February 
2005394.  Annual  JLS  sub-committee  meetings  have  since  been  held  covering  issues  such  as 
reform  of  the  judiciary,  corruption,  money  laundering,  fundamental  rights,  protection  of 
personal data, border management, visa and document security, asylum, migration, organised 
crime,  police  cooperation  and  drugs.  Expert  assessment  missions  to  Croatia  on  JLS  issues, 
with  the  participation  of  Member  State  experts,  have  been  carried  out  annually.  A  revised 
version of the Accession Partnership was adopted in 2008395 and sets out short-term priorities 
in  the  JLS  area.  The  Commission  published  the  latest  annual  Progress Report  on  Croatia  in 
November 2008396. 

Accession  negotiations  with  Croatia  were  opened  in  October  2005.  Neither  of  the  two  JLS 
chapters has yet been formally opened for negotiations.  

An  operational  cooperation  agreement  between  Croatia  and  Europol  entered  into  force  in 
2006 and Croatia has posted a liaison officer to Europol. Croatia has also signed a working 
arrangement with Frontex, as well as a cooperation agreement with Eurojust. Preparations are 
being made for Croatia to participate to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug 
Addiction and in the Fundamental Rights Agency.  

393 
394 

395 

396 

COM(2008) 823 final. 
Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, 
of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, OJ L 26, 28.5.2005, p. 3. 
Council  Decision  2008/119/EC  of  12  February  2008  on  the  principles,  priorities  and  conditions 
contained in the Accession Partnership with Croatia and repealing Decision 2006/145/EC, OJ L 042 , 
16.2.2008, p. 1. 
SEC(2008) 2694. 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Accession negotiations with Turkey were opened in October 2005 and the screening process 
was launched to assess the level of preparedness to start negotiations on individual chapters. 
The screening reports on the two JLS-related chapters are under discussion in the Council. No 
agreement  has  been  reached  so  far  on  the  opening  of  either  one  of  the  two  JLS-related 
chapters.  

A  revised  Accession  Partnership  was  adopted  by  the  Council  in  2008397.  Progress  on  the 
priorities  of  the  Accession  Partnership  in  the  field  of  justice,  freedom  and  security,  is 
monitored  and  encouraged  at  the  yearly  Association  Committee  and  the  sectoral  JLS  sub-
committee meetings. Negotiations for a readmission agreement with Turkey were opened in 
2005 and the last round of negotiations took place in December 2006. Since then, however, 
Turkey has not pursued the negotiations.  

The  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  applied  for  EU  membership  in  2004. 
Subsequently  the  country  has  replied  to  a  Commission  questionnaire,  which  contained  a 
substantial chapter on JLS issues. In the opinion it issued in 2005398, the Commission judged 
that  there  had  been  sufficient  progress,  including  on  JLS  issues,  to  recommend  candidate 
status. This status was granted by the Council in 2005. The Commission is closely monitoring 
developments in the country and has organised several expert missions. Three of the eight key 
priorities  of  the  country's  accession  partnership  are  JLS-related:  judicial  reform,  anti-
corruption and police reform. 

Relations  with  Western  Balkan  countries  have  intensified  within  the  different  regular 
meetings of the Stabilisation and Association Process. Short and medium-term priorities are 
set  out  in  the  European  Partnerships  for  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Montenegro, 
Serbia  and  Kosovo  (under  UNSCR  1244/99)399,  and  efforts  made  are  evaluated  in  the 
Progress  Reports  adopted  annually  for  each  country,  the  latest  of  which  was  published  in 
November  2008400.  Expert  missions  were  conducted  by  the  Commission  to  deepen  the 
assessment of progress on the ground and refine technical assistance priorities in Montenegro, 
Serbia  and  Kosovo.  Stabilisation  and  Association  agreements  were  signed  with  Albania, 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Montenegro  and  Serbia.  Pending  their  entry  into  force,  interim 
agreements are in place with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. 

397 

398 
399 

400 

Council  Decision  2008/157/EC  of  18  February  2008  on  the  principles,  priorities  and  conditions 
contained  in  the  Accession  Partnership  with  the  Republic  of  Turkey  and  repealing  Decision 
2006/35/EC, OJ L 051 , 26.2.2008, p. 4. 
COM(2005) 562 final. 
Respectively:  Council  Decision  2008/210/EC  of  18 February  2008  on  the  principles,  priorities  and 
conditions contained in the European Partnership with Albania and repealing Decision 2006/54/EC, OJ 
L 80 , 19.3.2008, p. 1; Council Decision 2008/211/EC of 18 February 2008 on the principles, priorities 
and  conditions  contained  in  the  European  Partnership  with  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  and  repealing 
Decision 2006/55/EC, OJ L 80, 19.3.2008, p. 18; Council Decision 2007/49/EC of 22 January 2007 on 
the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European Partnership with Montenegro, OJ L 
020, 27.1.2007, p. 16; Council Decision 2008/213/EC of 18 February 2008 on the principles, priorities 
and  conditions  contained  in  the  European  Partnership  with  Serbia  including  Kosovo  as  defined  by 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 and repealing Decision 2006/56/EC, 
OJ L 80, 19.2.2008, p. 46. 
SEC(2008) 2692, SEC(2008) 2693, SEC(2008) 2696, SEC(2008) 2698 and SEC(2008) 2697. 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some  progress  can  be  noted,  in  particular  in  the  area  of  visa  facilitation  and  readmission, 
where  agreements  are  now  in  force  with  Western  Balkan  countries401.  Dialogue  on  visa 
liberalisation  started  in  early  2008  with  five  countries  of  the  region  (Albania,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Montenegro  and  Serbia).  The 
Commission is currently reviewing the extent to which countries have met their benchmarks. 
Depending  on  how  successful  they  have  been,  the  Commission  could  propose  the  lifting  of 
the  visa  obligation  for  certain  countries.  On  the  other  hand,  the  overall  results  in  the  fight 
against organised crime and corruption and administrative capacities in the judiciary and the 
police, remain weak.  

European Neighbourhood Policy countries 

The  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  provides  the  overall  framework  for  relations  with 
countries on the Eastern and Southern borders of the EU. 

Bilateral relations with Mediterranean countries largely focus on the implementation of the 
JLS  provisions  of  the  ENP  action  plans  with  Morocco,  Tunisia,  Jordan,  Israel  and  the 
Palestinian Authority. Action plans with Egypt and Lebanon were agreed in 2007, including a 
significant JLS section. The network of sub-committees under the Association Agreements is 
used  to  implement  and  review  progress  towards  the  realisation  of  the  objectives  set  out  in 
these action plans.  

With Algeria, two informal JLS working group meetings took place in December 2006 and 
March  2007,  prior  to  the  first  meeting  of  the  EU-Algeria  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  sub-
committee in December 2008, and covered a wide range of subjects including migration and 
terrorism. Algeria refused to conclude an ENP Action Plan but a "Road map accompanying 
the  association  agreement"  was  agreed  last  year  and  focused  on  a  number  of  priority  areas 
(e.g. management of movement of persons and fight against terrorism). 

With Egypt, the second meeting of the EU-Egypt Justice and Security sub-committee and the 
working group on migration, social and consular affairs took place in June 2008. It identified 
a  variety  of  cooperation  possibilities,  from  supporting  the  efforts  of  the  respective  Egyptian 
bodies  in  assisting  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  to  the  training  of  judges  and 
prosecutors.  

Cooperation has progressed with Israel in the recent years through the ENP. Four meetings 
have already been held of the EU-Israel Justice and Legal matters sub-committee. A series of 
seminars have taken place in the areas of combating trafficking in human beings, fight against 
anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia, money laundering and terrorism financing. On police 
cooperation, preparations are ongoing for negotiations on an operational agreement between 
Europol and Israel. Israel has also expressed interest in concluding a cooperation agreement 
with Eurojust. 

As  regards  Jordan,  the  third  EU-Jordan  Justice  and  Security  sub-committee  and  the  Social 
affairs  working  party,  which  covers  migration  and  asylum  issues,  took  place  in  May  2008. 
Cooperation  has  been  stepped  up  in  the  area  of  justice  and  prison  reform.  Furthermore, 

401 

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYROM, Montenegro and Serbia. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
                                                 
dialogue  on  radicalisation/recruitment  issues  between  Jordanian  and  EU  experts  may  be 
supported.  

For  Lebanon,  the  first  meeting  of  the  EU-Lebanon  Justice,  Liberty  and  Security  sub-
committee was held in November 2008, where a first exchange of views to identified possible 
issues for future cooperation. 

Cooperation with Morocco is substantial. The "advanced status" granted to Morocco in 2008 
contains a specific JLS dimension. The EU-Morocco Justice and Security sub-committee and 
the working party on migration and social affairs meet regularly. While migration issues are 
crucial, the country is a frontrunner in terms of overall JLS cooperation. Europol and Eurojust 
have mandates to negotiate cooperation agreements with Morocco although no progress has 
been made so far. Together with Algeria, Morocco is a privileged partner under the "priority 
countries  initiative"  for  increasing  cooperation  in  the  fight  against  terrorism.  However, 
negotiations on the readmission agreement, which have been ongoing for several years, have 
not yet been finalised. 

With  Tunisia,  the  first  meeting  of  the  sub-committee  on  justice  and  security  and  of  the 
working  group  on  migration  and  social  affairs  took  place  in  April  2008.  A  project  on  the 
modernisation  of  the  judiciary  is  ongoing  funded  under  EC  bi-lateral  cooperation  (MEDA 
national programme). 

Justice, freedom and security is an important area for EU-Ukraine cooperation. Ukraine and 
the  EU  face  common  challenges  in  the  fight  against  organised  crime,  terrorism  and  other 
illegal  activities  of  cross-border  nature.  The  JLS  Action  Plan  and  the  ENP  Action  Plan 
represent are the primary tools to strengthen partnership and co-operation in the JLS field and 
provide a means of supporting the consolidation of democracy and the protection of human 
rights and fundamental freedoms.  

Successful  implementation  of  the  agreements  on  visa  facilitation  and  readmission  that  have 
been  in  force  since  January  2008  led  to  the  opening  of  visa  dialogue  between  the  EU  and 
Ukraine in October 2008. This focuses on four thematic ‘blocks’: document security including 
biometrics, illegal immigration including readmission, public order and security, and external 
relations. 

The  EU  is  working  with  Ukraine  to  renew  efforts  to  strengthen  the  rule  of  law  and  in 
particular  to  implement  the  reforms  needed  to  guarantee  the  independence,  impartiality  and 
professionalism of the judiciary and the effectiveness of the court system. At the same time, 
wider efforts are being intensified to combat corruption.  

Ukraine has achieved improvements in conditions for detention and accommodation standards 
for  illegal  migrants  following  the  opening  of  new  Migrant  Custody  Centres  and  five 
Temporary  Holding  Facilities  for  irregular  migrants  in  cooperation  with  the  EU.  Concern 
remains however over the treatment of asylum seekers. 

Operational  agreements  with  Europol  and  Eurojust  remain  political  priorities,  but  Ukraine 
needs  to  adopt  and  implement  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  for  the  Protection  of 
Individuals  of  1981  with  regard  to  "automatic  processing  of  personal  data",  which  is  a 
prerequisite for enhancing its relations with Europol and Eurojust.  

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
As for the  Southern Caucasus, Georgia is the only country for which  the  ENP Action Plan 
provides for a Justice, Freedom and Security sub-committee, which met for the first time in 
2007. The EU looks forward to enhancing cooperation on all JLS issues identified in this sub-
committee. Furthermore, three important seminars have been organised in the last two years 
on  drug  trafficking  and  the  fight  against  terrorism,  mobility  and  visas  and  on  an  integrated 
border  management  system.  The  Extraordinary  European  Council  held  in  Brussels  on  1 
September  2008  decided  "to  step  up  its  relations  with  Georgia,  including  visa  facilitation 
measures  (…)"402.  Following  the  authorisation  given  by  the  Council  to  the  Commission  in 
November  2008  to  negotiate  a  visa  facilitation  agreement  and  readmission  agreements  with 
Georgia, formal negotiations should be opened in 2009. 

The  prospects  for  cooperation  with  Armenia  are  good.  A  seminar  on  migration  and  a 
technical  meeting  on  JLS  issues  took  place  in  2008.  Also  in  2008,  Armenia  officially 
requested the creation of a JLS sub-committee. The terms of reference for this sub-committee 
could be proposed to the Council in 2009. A follow-up meeting on JLS issues is planned in 
Yerevan in 2009. 

Some preliminary contact has been made with Azerbaijan with a view to organising a first 
technical meeting on JLS issues and a seminar on migration and visas, possibly in 2009. The 
establishment  of  a  JLS  sub-committee  may  follow,  subject  to  the  endorsement  from  the 
Council. 

As regards the Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan and 
Turkmenistan), while they are not part of the ENP, a dialogue is regularly taking place with 
the EU in the JLS areas, notably on migration related issues. Of these countries, Kazakhstan 
has shown a special interest in stepping up relations in the JLS area. 

Strategic Partners and beyond 

The Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice is being created wiith Russia, an EU's 
strategic  partner.  The  six-monthly  JHA  Permanent  Partnership  Council  (PPC)  sets  the 
priorities  for  work  and  monitors  progress.  The  Commission  is  currently  negotiating  new 
comprehensive agreements with Russia and Ukraine, which will provide new legal basis for 
relations and will pave the way also for more enhanced cooperation in the JLS field. These 
Agreements  will  replace  the  existing  Partnership  and  Cooperation  Agreements.  Similar 
negotiations will be commenced also with Moldova once the negotiating directives have been 
adopted. 

Implementation of the agreements on visa facilitation and readmission that entered into force 
in 2007 is being  monitored in regular meetings of joint committees. As provided for by the 
Common Space, the procedure for an EU-Russia visa dialogue to examine the conditions for 
visa-free travel as a long-term prospect was agreed at the April 2007 PPC, and in this context 
the  first  technical  meetings  have  taken  place  on  document  security,  illegal  migration  and 
public order and security. Frontex signed a working arrangement with Russia in 2006, making 
for  practical  and  operational  cooperation  along the  common  border,  and  a  joint  cooperation 
plan has also been agreed to take cooperation forward with the Russian Border Guard Service. 

402 

Council document 12594/2/08 rev 2. 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Significant steps have been taken to bolster cooperation concerning common challenges, both 
in the fight against organised crime and on terrorism. Working on the strategic agreement of 
from  2003,  Russia  and  Europol  are  engaged  in  active  cooperation,  including  on  threat 
assessments,  and  negotiations  on  an  operational  agreement  are  awaiting  reassurances  of 
Russia's national data protection legislation and its implementation in line with the Council of 
Europe  Convention  on  Personal  Data  Protection.  Concerns  about  personal  data  protection 
have also delayed talks between Eurojust and Russia on a cooperation agreement.  

The  six-monthly  meetings  of  the  EU-Russia  JLS  Liaison  Officers  in  Moscow  promote 
operational cooperation. The European Police College and the respective Russian authorities 
concluded  a  protocol  of  intent  in  2008  on  enhanced  training  activities  for  law  enforcement 
agencies.  Dialogue  on  the  fight  against  terrorism  continues  through  informal  meetings  on 
critical infrastructure protection and regular meetings of COTER. 

On drugs, the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Monitoring Centre for 
Drugs and Drug Addiction and the Federal Service for Drugs Control was signed in 2007. The 
EU-Russia Drugs Troika meetings convene regularly to outline fields of further cooperation, 
including on the control of precursors. The first expert meetings have been held on the fight 
against cybercrime.  

The Commission has held several rounds of informal talks with Russia on judicial cooperation 
in  civil  and  commercial  matters.  The  meetings  have  made  progress  on  the  framework  for  a 
possible  bilateral  agreement,  covering  jurisdiction,  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judicial 
decisions in civil and commercial matters. While judicial cooperation in criminal matters has 
been a difficult domain, both sides are committed to discussing problems at expert level. 

Cooperation  with  the  United  States  of  America,  a  strategic  partner  of  the  EU,  has  been 
stepped  up  in  recent  years,  in  areas  such  as  counter-terrorism,  visa  policy  and  judicial 
cooperation.  

Relations  with  the  US  have  increased  appreciably  since  2001  and  have  witnessed  both 
remarkable achievements and also difficult moments of tension.  

Two agreements on judicial cooperation in criminal matters (on mutual legal assistance and 
extradition403)  were  signed  in  2003  but  have  not  yet  entered  into  force.  They  have  been 
ratified in the United States but not yet by all EU Member States.  

A new PNR agreement was concluded in 2007 (see chapter 3.II for more details). 

Cooperation agreements between the US authorities and Europol were concluded in 2001 and 
2003, respectively. Cooperation has increased qualitatively and quantitatively over time and, 
by 2008, five US law enforcement agencies had a representative at Europol headquarters in 
the Hague. 

403 

Council Decision 2003/516/EC of 6 June 2003 concerning the signature of the Agreements between the 
European Union and the United States of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal 
matters, OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 25. 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Eurojust has had a cooperation agreement in place with the US Department of Justice since 
2006. The number of cases registered in Eurojust with the involvement of the US is moderate 
(6 in 2006, 31 in 2007), many of which relate to economic crime. However, there have been a 
number  of  practitioners  seminars  which  were  regarded  as  useful  by  both  sides,  e.g  the 
practitioners  seminar organised in November 2008 to prepare for the entry into force of the 
EU-US Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Agreements. 

The situation of non-reciprocity  with regard to visa-free  travel has  been a  source of  tension 
between the EU and the United States in recent years. While US citizens can travel visa-free 
to  all  EU  Member  States,  the  United  States  required  visas  from  citizens  of  up  to  12  EU 
Member States (since 1.1.2009, only citizens of 5 EU Member States are still under the visa 
obligation, namely: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland and Romania). The lack of progress on 
this politically sensitive issue has resulted in a less unified EU approach vis-à-vis the United 
States  than  would  have  been  desirable.  The  EU  agreed  on  a  two-track  approach  in  March 
2008, defining the dividing line between the EC's authority and Member State's authority to 
discuss  with  the  US  authorities  the  requirements  under  US  law  for  participation  in  the  US 
Visa  Waiver  Program.  Subsequently, 
the  United  States  signed  Memorandums  of 
Understanding  and  bilateral  agreements  with  individual  Member  States  that  enhanced  the 
scope  for  the  exchange  of  information  and  personal  data  relating  to  terrorism  and  serious 
crime. 

In addition to Ministerial Troika meetings and senior officials meetings twice a year, there are 
also dedicated Council working group meetings with US representatives on counter-terrorism 
and terrorist financing matters, anti-drugs policy, immigration, frontiers and asylum and false 
documents (the latter two are trilateral meetings with the United States and Canada). 

As regards Africa, the framework for cooperation is the Joint EU-Africa Strategy, which was 
adopted  at  the  Second  EU-Africa  Summit  held  in  Lisbon  in  December  2007404.  An  Action 
Plan for the period 2008-2010405 was also adopted at the Summit to progress in eight Africa-
EU  Partnerships.  One  of  the  Partnerships  covers  migration  and  mobility.  Other  JLS  aspects 
such  as  cooperation  in  the  prevention  of  and  fight  against  terrorism,  drugs  trafficking  and 
organised crime are also covered in the Action Plan. In this regard, Western Africa is posing 
major security challenges. 

Cooperation with China, a strategic partner of the EU, has developed through the entry into 
force of the Approved Destination Status Memorandum of Understanding in 2004406. The EU 
also  holds  regular  High  Level  Consultations  with  China  on  fighting  illegal  migration  and 
trafficking  in  human  beings.  The  Commission  has  a  mandate  to  negotiate  a  readmission 
agreement  with  China,  but  negotiations  have  never  been  launched  due  to  reluctance  on  the 
part  of  the  Chinese.  Finally,  negotiations  with  China  on  a  new  framework  agreement  have 

404 
405 

406 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EAS2007_joint_strategy_en.pdf. 
Available 
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EAS2007_action_plan_2008_2010_en.pdf. 
Council  Decision  2004/265/EC  of  8  March  2004  concerning  the  conclusion  of  the  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  between  the  European  Community  and  the  National  Tourism  Administration  of  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  on  visa  and  related  issues  concerning  tourist  groups  from  the  People's 
Republic of China (ADS), OJ L 83, 20.3.2004, p. 12. 

at: 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
                                                 
started  and  the  agreement  will  include  a  substantial  JLS  chapter,  which  would  widen  the 
scope for JLS cooperation with China appreciably.  

As  regards  India,  the  vision  of  an  EU-India  Strategic  Partnership  was  launched  in  a 
Commission Communication in June 2004407. This resulted in agreement on an ambitious EU-
India Action Plan408 to implement this partnership. The Action Plan contains JLS components 
regarding  terrorism,  organised  crime,  migration  and  consular  issues,  including  initiating  a 
regular  high  level  dialogue  on  migration  with  India.  This  dialogue  on  migration  issues  and 
visa  policy  was  launched  in  2006.  Issues  relating  to  migration  ands  terrorism  are  regularly 
discussed in meetings at different levels with India. EU-India troika consultation on counter-
terrorism  took  place  in  2005.  The  EU-India  Joint  Working  Group  on  Consular  Affairs 
continued to meet twice per year at local level in Delhi. 

As  regards Brazil,  dialogue  has  been  mainly  pursued  at  regional  level  in  the  context  of  the 
EU-Latin  American  and  Caribbean  countries  forum,  notably  on  anti-drugs  and  migration 
policies. Since Brazil became a strategic partner of the EU in 2007, a Joint Action Plan has 
been  on  the  agenda,  which  was  finally  endorsed  at  the  EU-Brazil  Summit  in  December 
2008409.  The  Joint  Action  Plan  includes  references  to  migration,  anti-drugs  policy,  the  fight 
against  organised  crime,  counter-terrorism  and  consular  protection,  and  it  is  due  to  be 
implemented  over the years 2009-2011. 

Cooperation  with  Latin  America  on  combating  drugs  trafficking  and  migration  issues  has 
also  been  ongoing.  On  migration,  the  Lima  Declaration  adopted  in  May  2008  agreed  to 
develop a structured and global dialogue.  

III. 

Future challenges 

As the Commission noted in its initial Communication regarding the Strategy, promoting the 
rule  of  law  externally  is  essential  to  underpin  the  EU’s  domestic  security,  stability  and 
development. To this end, it will remain essential to ensure that human rights are placed at the 
heart of law enforcement policies supported by the EU in third countries. 

In the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, progress can only be made through the active 
contribution of both Member States and the Commission, and through real partnership with 
third countries. 

Work on the thematic priorities identified in the Strategy has continued and these challenges 
remain, as was made clear by the 2008 European Union Organised Crime Threat Assessment 
(OCTA)  and  the  EU  Terrorism  Situation  and  Trend  report  (TE-SAT)410.  This  external 
dimension  continues  to  add  value.  In  recent  years,  there  has  been  a  particular  focus  on 
migration, and a Global Approach to Migration has been developed411. A recent Commission 

407 
408 
409 
410 
411 

COM(2004) 430 final. 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/india/docs/joint_action_plan_060905_en.pdf. 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/brazil/docs/2008_joint_action_plan_en.pdf. 
Available at: http://www.europol.europa.eu. 
See section 2.2.5. 

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Communication412 sets out the prospects for substantive and methodological improvements to 
the Global Approach, focusing on ways of improving coordination, coherence and synergy.  

Coordination,  coherence  and synergy  in  both  JHA  and  External  Relations  are  essential  at 
all  levels  (Commission,  Council  and  Member  States).  A  temporary  JAI-RELEX  ad  hoc 
working group has been set up in the Council to provide an additional forum for information 
exchange to feed into the work of the thematic and geographic Council working groups.  

As set out in the first Commission progress report, making practical progress in relations with 
third  countries  takes  time.  In  the  area  of  capacity  and  institution  building,  for  example, 
sustainability  and  continuity  are  essential  to  produce  results.  In  this  area,  complementarity 
between  action  carried  out  by  Member  States  and  EU  assistance  is  not  always  ensured, 
which leads to overlapping and potential duplication of efforts.  

Another area where work is ongoing is in the protection of fundamental rights of EU citizens 
in  relation  with  third  countries.  The  rapid  development  of  information  technologies  and 
widespread  use  of  electronic  means  for  commercial  and  financial  transactions  increase  the 
amount of personal data available. This together with the law enforcement authorities' interest 
in making the best use of the information available to fight terrorism and serious crimes is the 
background  for  a  number  of  requests  from  third  countries  to  use  the  personal  data  of  EU 
citizens for law enforcement purposes. In the light of the EU legislation on the protection of 
personal data, there is a adequate safeguards for personal data transfers to third countries 
need to be ensured. Such requests have been made in the past for the use of passenger name 
records  for  law  enforcement  purposes  (e.g.  US,  Canada,  Australia  and  South  Korea)  and 
financial  transaction  data  (US).  An  overall  strategy  on  the  transfer  of  personal  data  should 
enable  the  EU  to  play  its  role  in  the  development  of  international  standards  and  in  the 
conclusion of appropriate international instruments, whether bilateral or multilateral.  

Broadening international consensus (especially in the UN) and enhancing international efforts 
to combat terrorism remains a key objective for the European Union. The EU has continued to 
support the key role of the United Nations and worked to ensure universal adherence to and 
full implementation of all UNSCR and UN Conventions and Protocols relating to terrorism. 
The Commission has contributed to international co-operation on technical assistance to help 
countries implement UNSCR 1373 (2001). 

As  stated  in  the  second  progress  report,  better  use  should  be  made  of  the  Action  Oriented 
Papers  (AOPs)  as  implementing  tools  focusing  on  the  delivery  of  results,  with  particular 
emphasis on operational cooperation, in which the Member States' commitment, expertise and 
added value is critical. Ownership of the AOPs to drive implementation and monitor follow-
up by the different stakeholders should be increased, and the scope should be more targeted. 

Third  countries  are  also  increasingly  interested  in  engaging  in  cooperation  with  the  EU  on 
specific  agreements,  e.g.  regarding  mutual  legal  assistance  or  in  civil  law  matters.  The  EU 
should  already  start  to  seek  –  and  even  more  so  in  the  future  –  to  develop  a  network  of 
bilateral  agreements  to  promote  trade  and  the  movement  of  people,  without  losing  the 
flexibility  needed  for  Member  States  themselves,  where  appropriate,  to  conclude  bilateral 

412 

COM(2008) 611 final. 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
                                                 
agreements  with  third  countries  where  the  EU  has  exclusive  competence.  This  may  require 
prioritising the requests, particularly in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and 
extradition. 

In the area of civil law, the EC should ensure better consistency between its internal rules and 
the  framework  it  adopts  for  international  private  law  as  it  evolves  on  the  various  platforms 
(Hague Conference, Council of Europe, Unidroit, United Nations/ Uncitral). The EC should 
also consider whether to accede to these international organisations. Certain areas of civil law 
requires a specific approach which makes it possible to delegate negotiation powers regarding 
Community competence to Member States.  

In close cooperation with the Member States, the EU dimension should be used as a means of 
resourcing  and  legitimising  an  extended  geographical  reach  of  European  law  enforcement 
efforts,  to  respond  to  the  challenges  of  organised  crime  and  terrorism  where  they  develop, 
rather than to wait for them to reach our borders.  

A forum for Member States and third-country partners would assist in the exchange of good 
practice  in  judicial  cooperation  in  both  civil  and  criminal  matters.  Direct,  operational  links 
with the judicial authorities in third countries should be developed to complement the work of 
the Member States themselves.  

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
7. 

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 

Future action for the further strengthening of justice, freedom and security in the EU should 
pay particular attention to the lessons learnt from the past and should serve the citizen through 
more  efficient  and  effective  policy-making.  Looking  at  the  achievements  and  difficulties 
encountered during the implementation of the Hague Programme and the related Action Plan 
analysed  in  this  report,  four  main  lessons  applicable  across  all  policy  areas  have  bee 
identified. 

7.1. 

Joined-up thinking and action  

The big issues facing Europe, whether short term crises or long term trends, demand joined-
up planning and action. Justice, freedom and security are each of relevance to all individual 
aspects of the Hague Programme. Consistency across the various policy areas is essential, not 
only  within  the  traditional  sphere  of  justice  and  home  affairs  activity,  but  also  across  the 
whole range of Community policies.  

In  migration  and  asylum,  policies  aiming  to  prevent  and  tackle  irregular  immigration  and 
abuses  of  the  asylum  system  must  not  hamper  access  to  the  protection  to  which  asylum-
seekers  are  entitled.  Fundamental  rights-proofing  of  EU  policies  must  continue  and  be 
extended  to  all  stages  of  decision  making  and  implementation  by  Member  States  of  EU 
legislative  acquis.  Border  management  is  vital  for  the  security  of  the  EU,  as  is  police 
cooperation  in  relation  to  fighting  illegal  immigration.  Cross-cutting  priorities  for  the  EU 
should be identified in these areas.  

The  protection  of  personal  data  in  the  framework  of  police  and  judicial  cooperation  in 
criminal matters has been the result of a case-by-case approach. Data protection requirements 
have  been  laid  down  in  a  variety  of  legislative  texts,  across  the  pillars,  and  their  scope  and 
nature  depend  on  the  objectives  of  the  individual  legislative  texts.  The  recently  adopted 
Framework  Decision  does  not  completely  solve  this  lack  of  harmonisation.  Achieving 
consistency in this area therefore deserves particular attention in the years to come. 

Other  cross-cutting  approaches  could  improve  the  effectiveness  of  our  policies,  such  as  the 
rights of the child and combating xenophobia and racism, whose threat sadly often mounts in 
times of economic crisis.  

The Global Approach to Migration consists of various instruments which could be integrated 
under  a  comprehensive  and  balanced  framework  for  dialogue  and  cooperation.  New 
challenges  need  to  be  tackled  in  a  systematic  way.  Political,  economic,  environmental  and 
demographic  changes  over  the  long  term  affect  the  EU's  relationships  with  third  countries, 
with significant impact on migration and mobility. Migration policy must be further integrated 
into  the  EU's  external  relations  strategy,  assisted  potentially  by  the  establishment  of  an 
External Action Service. 

We  need  to  exploit  fully  the  opportunities  presented  by  new  technologies.  The  information 
society  has  also  created  the  need  for  a  high  level  of  network  and  information  security 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
throughout Europe. The fight against cyber crime and cyber terrorism requires stakeholders to 
be closely involved in efforts to enhance the level of preparedness, security and resilience of 
ICT infrastructures and services. These long-term challenges demand careful consideration on 
a European level.413 

The  security  research  and  innovation  agenda  must  be  taken  forward  in  partnership  with  the 
private and public sectors and with the full participation of end-user organisations. The work 
of ESRIF should be taken into account. The objective of the European Security Research and 
Innovation Forum (ESRIF), a public-private partnership established in September 2007, was 
to develop a Europe's strategic plan for security research and innovation over the mid to long 
term, known as the European Security Research and Innovation Agenda. The purpose of the 
Agenda is twofold; firstly, to contribute to the security of citizens, infrastructures and borders 
as well as enhancing Europe's capacity to deal with crisis. Secondly, the Agenda focuses on 
competitiveness,  innovation  with  a  view  to  positioning  the  Europe  as  a  global  leader  in  the 
security market. Moreover the Agenda brings greater coherence and efficiency to the security 
research  and  innovation  activities  at  the  European  and  national  level  also  by  addressing 
technological as well as societal aspects of security research. 

7.2. 

Further attention to implementation and enforcement 

It  is  of  concern  that  the  success  in  adopting  measures  in  the  Hague  Programme  and  Action 
Plan contrasts with the mixed record in national implementation. Now that a substantial legal 
framework is in place, the focus of future action should be on consolidation and enforcement. 
The Commission can assist in this by consolidating existing acquis, facilitating coordination 
and  exchange  of  best  practises  between  Member  States  such  as  through  implementation 
seminars,  and  by  providing  financial  support  and  encouraging  training.  Greater  use  of 
infringement proceedings should also be envisaged. The Commission has promoted the right 
of the EU citizen to move and reside freely in the territory of the EU, but more work is needed 
to  ensure  that  EU  citizens  are  aware  of  their  rights  and  can  be  confident  that  they  will  be 
respected. Existing agencies and networks need to realise their full potential, cooperate with 
each other more and exploit potential synergies. 

7.3. 

Improving the use of evaluation 

Citizens  expect  to  see  results  from  EU  policies.  Many  instruments  have  been  adopted  and 
many agencies established under the Hague Programme. In many cases it is too soon to assess 
their effectiveness in terms of concrete results. Measures taken in the fight against organised 
crime, in police and customs cooperation and in criminal justice remain difficult to evaluate as 
often there is no formal duty for Member States to report on implementation. 

More robust and systematic monitoring and evaluation systems for each policy are needed to 
provide comparable evidence on the impact of what the EU does. Evaluation results will then 
inform better policy-making and help explain to EU citizens the added value of EU action.  

413 

COM(2009) 149 final. 

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Better evaluation depends on the availability of up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable 
data. For example, in migration there are now common rules for Community statistics and an 
established European Migration Network. Similarly, the Commission with Member States has 
developed parameters for collecting, analysing and comparing data and trends in trafficking in 
human beings and money laundering. However, in many areas such as justice data has been 
unavailable. Even where data collection systems are in place or are being created, including 
for  crime  and  specifically  for  drugs,  consideration  should  be  given  to  more  binding 
provisions.  Funding  under  the  Research  and  Technological  Development  Framework 
Programme and other relevant programmes should continue to help develop knowledge in this 
policy area. 

The credibility of the next multiannual programme will depend on the extent to which the EU 
can report meaningfully on its effectiveness.  

7.4. 

Complementing internal policies though external action 

Member  States,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  need  to  work  together  to  strengthen 
partnerships  with  third  parties.  Continuity  and  consistency  between  internal  and  external 
European  justice,  freedom  and  security  policies  are  essential  to  produce  results  and  to  meet 
the challenges posed by globalisation.. The EU needs to anticipate challenges rather than wait 
for  them  to  reach  our  borders,  and  it  should  promote  standards,  such  as  those  for  data 
protection, which can be regarded internationally as examples worth following. The external 
dimension of JLS policies needs to be fully integrated and coherent with EU external action 
and policies such as development cooperation. 

Increasingly,  third  countries  approach  the  EU  for  cooperation  on  the  basis  of  specific 
agreements.  These  approaches  may  require  prioritisation.  Consideration  should  be  given  to 
identifying  criteria  for  deciding  how  to  respond  to  these  approaches  and  whether  to  include 
them  within  an  overall  framework  of  a  comprehensive  agreement.  Cooperation  initiatives 
should respond to the particular circumstances of the countries which are preparing to join the 
EU.  External  relations  priorities  of  the  Union  should  also  better  inform  and  guide  the 
prioritisation  of  the  work  of  agencies  such  as  Europol,  Eurojust  and  Frontex.  The  agencies' 
operational  knowledge,  particularly  where  they  have  concluded  agreements  or  working 
arrangements with third countries, in addition to their annual reports, could provide valuable 
input into decision-making at EU level. 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Corresponding section 

Section 

Programme: 
Hague 
Strengthening 
Freedom, 
Security  and  Justice  in  the 
European Union 

Justice  Freedom  and 
Security in Europe since 
2005:  an  evaluation  of 
the  Hague  Programme 
and Action Plan 

1 

2 

2.1 

2.2 

About this document 

General orientations 

II. 

Protection  of 
rights 

Implementation 
evaluation 

fundamental 

II.2 

and 

II.3 

3 

Strengthening freedom 

III.1 

3.1 

Promotion 
Citizenship 

of 

European 

III.1.1 

3.2  Asylum,  migration 
border policy 

and 

3.3  Asylum  (Common  European 

III.1.3 

Asylum System) 

3.4  Migration 

3.5  Border management 

III.1.4 

 III.1.6.4 

III.1.7.1 

III.1.7.1 

III1.7.2 

3.6 

Integration  of  third  country 
nationals  

III.1.5 

3.7  Visa policy 

III.1.7.3 

3.8  External 

dimension 

of 

III.1.6 

asylum and migration 

4 

Strengthening Security 

III.2 

I, II 

III.1.1 

V.2 

V.3 

III.1 

III.1.2 

III.1.3 

III.1.4 

III.1.5 

III.1.4 

III.1.6 

III.1.7 

III.2 

EN 

121 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Section 

Corresponding section 

Programme: 
Hague 
Freedom, 
Strengthening 
Security  and  Justice  in  the 
European Union 

Justice  Freedom  and 
Security in Europe since 
2005:  an  evaluation  of 
the  Hague  Programme 
and Action Plan 

4.1 

Improving  the  exchange  of 
information 

III.2.1 

4.2  Terrorism 

4.3 

Police cooperation 

4.4  Management of crises within 
the  EU  with  cross-border 
effects 

III.2.2 

III.2.3 

III.2.5 

III.2.4 

4.5  Organised 
corruption 
prevention 

crime 
and 

and 
crime 

III.2.6 

III.2.7 

4.6  European strategy on drugs 

III.2.8 

5 

Strengthening justice 

III.3 

5.1  European Court of Justice 

III.3.1 

5.2  Confidence-building 
mutual trust 

and 

III.3.2 

5.3 

5.4 

6 

7 

Judicial 
criminal matters 

cooperation 

in 

III.3.3 

Judicial  cooperation  in  civil 
matters 

III.3.4 

External dimension 

4 

Overall conclusions 

IIII.2.1 

III.2.2 

III.2.1 

III.2.3 

III.2.4 

III.3 

IV 

III.3.3 

III.3.1 

III.3.2 

III.4 

V 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
 
 
LIST OF SOURCES 

Anti-Phishing  working  group  (APWG),  "Phishing  Activity  Trends  Report  Q1  2008", 
available at: http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/apwg_report_Q1_2008.pdf 

B&S Europe, "Best practices in vertical relations between the Financial Intelligence Unit and 
i) law enforcement services and ii) money laundering and terrorist financing reporting entities, 
with a view to indicating effective models for feedback on follow-up to and effectiveness of 
suspicious transaction reports", not yet published 

COM  (2008)  128  final,  Green  Paper  "Effective  enforcement  of  judgments  in  the  European 
Union: the transparency of debtors’ assets"  

COM(2003) 265 final, "First Report on the implementation of the Data Protection Directive 
(95/46/EC)" 

COM(2004)  409  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  based  on  article  11  of  the  Council 
Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism" 

COM(2004)  54  final/2,  "Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  Article  18  of  the 
Council  Framework  Decision  of  15  March  2001  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal 
proceedings" 

COM(2005) 10 final, White Paper on exchanges of information on convictions and the effect 
of such convictions in the European Union  

COM(2005) 172 final, "Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Commission 
legislative proposals - Methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring" 

COM(2005)  184  final,  "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)  195  final,  Communication  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  judicial  decisions  in 
criminal matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States 

COM(2005) 606 final, Green Paper on the future of the European migration network 

COM(2005) 620 final, "Prevention of and Fight against Terrorist Financing through enhanced 
national level coordination and greater transparency of the non-profit sector"  

COM(2005)  63  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  based  on  Article  34  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the  surrender 
procedures between Member States"  

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
COM(2005)  65  final,  "European  Initiative  for  Growth  -  Feasibility  report  on  EU  loan 
guarantee instrument for TEN-Transport projects" 

COM(2005) 696 final, Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principle of ne bis in 
idem in Criminal Proceedings  

COM(2006) 156 final, "Third Report on the application of Directives 93/96, 90/364, 90/365 
on the right of residence for students, economically inactive and retired Union citizens" 

COM(2006) 203 final, "Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament 
and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  the  application  of  Council  Decision 
2001/470/EC establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters" 

COM(2006) 3 final, "Report from the Commission to the Council on visa waiver reciprocity 
with  certain  third  countries  in  accordance  with  Article  2  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
851/2005  of  2  June  2005  amending  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  539/2001  listing  the  third 
countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders 
and  those  whose  nationals  are  exempt  from  that  requirement  as  regards  the  reciprocity 
mechanism" 

COM(2006)  316  final,  Green  Paper  on  the  role  of  Civil  Society  in  Drugs  Policy  in  the 
European Union 

COM(2006) 331 final, "Implementing The Hague Programme : the way forward" 

COM(2006) 332 final, "Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice" 

COM(2006) 333 final, "Report on the implementation of the Hague programme for 2005" 

COM(2006)  568  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council on cases where visa waiver non-reciprocity is maintained by certain third countries in 
accordance  with  Article  1(5)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  539/2001  listing  the  third 
countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders 
and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as amended by Regulation (EC) 
No 851/2005 as regards the reciprocity mechanism" 

COM(2006)  618  final,  Green  Paper  on  improving  the  efficiency  of  the  enforcement  of 
judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts 

COM(2006) 744 final, Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis 

COM(2006) 790 final, "Commission Report on the participation of European Union citizens 
in  the  Member  State  of  residence  (Directive  93/109/EC)  and  on  the  electoral  arrangements 
(Decision 76/787/EC as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom)" 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
COM(2006)  8  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  based  on  Article  34  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the  surrender 
procedures between Member States (revised version)"  

COM(2006)174 final, Green Paper "The Presumption of Innocence" 

COM(2007) 299 final, "Report on the evaluation of the Dublin system"  

COM(2007) 301 final, Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System 

COM(2007) 328 final, "Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 9 of the 
Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the 
private sector" 

COM(2007) 373 final, "Report on the implementation of The Hague programme for 2006" 

COM(2007) 407 final, "Report from the Commission on the implementation since 2005 of the 
Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the 
surrender procedures between Member States"  

COM(2007) 512 final, "Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration" 

COM(2007) 533 final, "Third Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the  Council  on  certain  third  countries'  maintenance  of  visa  requirements  in  breach  of  the 
principle  of  reciprocity  in  accordance  with  Article  1(5)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
539/2001  listing  the  third  countries  whose  nationals  must  be  in  possession  of  visas  when 
crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 as regards the reciprocity mechanism" 

COM(2007)  644  final,  "Communication  on  the  role  of  Eurojust  and  the  European  Judicial 
Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the European Union" 

COM(2007)  681  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  based  on  Article  11  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  combating  terrorism"  and  SEC(2007)  1463, 
"Commission staff working document - Annex to the Report from the Commission based on 
Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism"  

COM(2007) 693 final, Commission working document on the feasibility of EU legislation in 
the area of protection of witnesses and collaborators with justice 

COM(2007)  716  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  Based  on  Article  12  of  the  Council 
Framework Decision of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children 
and child pornography" 

COM(2007) 781 final, "Communication from the Commission on the 2007 Progress Review 
of the implementation of the EU action plan on drugs (2005-2008)" 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
COM(2007)  805  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  6  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  24  February  2005  on  confiscation  of  crime  related  proceeds, 
instrumentalities and property (2005/212/JHA)" 

COM(2007) 827  final, "Report  from the  Commission on the implementation of the Council 
Decision  of  17  October  2000  concerning  arrangements  for  cooperation  between  financial 
intelligence  units  of 
information 
(2000/642/JHA)" 

respect  of  exchanging 

the  Member  States 

in 

COM(2007)  87  final,  Communication  on  the  follow-up  of  the  Work  Programme  for  better 
implementation of the Data Protection Directive 

COM(2008) 373 final, "Report on implementation of the Hague programme for 2007" 

COM(2008) 448 final, "Report from the  Commission to the Council based on Article 12 of 
the  Council  Framework  Decision  of  24  February  2005  on  attacks  against  information 
systems" 

COM(2008)  486  final/2,  "Fourth  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament on certain third countries' maintenance of visa requirements in breach of 
the  principle  of  reciprocity  in  accordance  with  Article  1(5)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
539/2001  listing  the  third  countries  whose  nationals  must  be  in  possession  of  visas  when 
crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 as regards the reciprocity mechanism" 

COM(2008)  610  final,  "Report  on  the  application  of  Directive  2003/86/EC  on  the  right  to 
family reunification" 

COM(2008)  657  final,  "Commission  working  document  -  Evaluation  and  monitoring  of  the 
implementation of the EU Plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and 
preventing trafficking in human beings" 

COM(2008)  67  final,  "Report  on  the  evaluation  and  future  development  of  the  FRONTEX 
Agency" 

COM(2008) 68 final, "Examining the creation of a European border surveillance system" 

COM(2008) 69 final, "Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union" 

COM(2008)  710  final,  Report  on  the  Development  of  the  Second  Generation  Schengen 
Information System (SIS II) - Progress Report January 2008 – June 2008 

COM(2008)  840  final,  "Report  on  the  application  of  Directive  2004/38/EC  on  the  right  of 
citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory 
of the Member States" 

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
COM(2008) 85 final, "Fifth Report on citizenship of the Union" 

COM(2008)  885  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  based  on  Article  14  of  the  Council 
Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union 
of orders freezing property or evidence" 

COM(2008)  888  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  based  on  Article  20  of  the  Council 
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle 
of mutual recognition to financial penalties" 

COM(2009)  133  final,  Report  on  the  Development  of  the  Second  Generation  Schengen 
Information System (SIS II) Progress - Report July 2008 – December 2008 

COM(2009)  166  final,  "Report  from  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  15  March  2001  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings 
(2001/220/JHA)"  

COM(2009) 170 final, "Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament 
and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  the  application  of  Council  Directive 
2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims" 

COM(2009) 174 final, "Report on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters" 

COM(2009) 175 final, Green Paper on the review of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters 

Compagnie Européenne d'Intelligence Stratégique (CEIS), Paris, "Les facteurs de création ou 
de modification des processus de radicalisation violente, chez les jeunes in particulier"; The 
Change  Institute,  London,  "Beliefs,  ideology  and  narratives";  King's  College,  London, 
"Recruitment and Mobilisation for the Islamist Militant Movement in  Europe"; The Change 
Institute,  London,  "Study  on  best  practices  in  cooperation  between  authorities  and  civil 
society with a view to the prevention and response to violent radicalisation". These studies are 
at: 
available 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism/prevention/fsj_terrorism_prevention_prevent_e
n.htm 

Council  document  17104/08,  "Report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  European  Security 
Strategy, Providing Security in a Changing World" 

Council document 5674/07, "Report to the Council on implementation of the Action Plan for 
the strategy for customs cooperation in the Third Pillar (2004-2006)" 

Council document 8102/3/08 rev 3, "State of play of implementation by Member States and 
EU bodies of EU priorities for the fight against organised crime based on the OCTA 2007" 

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
Council  document  9831/08,  "Final  Report  by  EU-US  High  Level  Contact  Group  on 
information sharing and privacy and personal data protection" 

Council of Europe, "Combating violence against women – Stocktaking study on the measures 
and actions taken in the Council of Europe member states", 2006 

EMCDDA 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/events/2008/annual-report 

Annual 

Report 

2008, 

available 

at: 

European  Commission,  "Analysis  of  the  future  of  mutual  recognition  in  criminal  matters  in 
the 
at: 
Union", 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/criminal/recognition/docs/mutual_recognition_e
n.pdf 

European 

available 

European Commission, "Comparative overview of the implementation of the directive 2003/9 
of  27  January  2003  laying  down  minimum  standards for the reception of asylum seekers in 
the 
at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/doc_asylum_studies_en.htm  

available 

Member 

States, 

EU 

European  Parliament,  "Implementation  of  the  European  Arrest  Warrant  and  the  Joint 
Investigation 
at: 
and  National 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file
=24333 

available 

Teams 

level", 

2009, 

EU 

at 

European  Parliament,  "Implementation  of 
Investigation 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file
=24333 

the  European  Arrest  Warrant  and  Joint 
at: 
2009, 

and  National 

available 

Teams 

level", 

EU 

at 

European Parliament, "Progress Made and Existing Gaps in the Field of Judicial co-operation 
in 
at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=en&file
=18151 

available 

matters", 

criminal 

2007, 

Europol 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Annual_Reports/Annual%20Report%202007.pdf 

available 

Annual 

Report 

2007, 

at: 

Europol,  EU  Terrorism  Situation  and  Trend  Report  TE-SAT  2008,  available  at: 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-
SAT/TESAT2008.pdf 

Europol, 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=publications 

European  Organised 

Crime 

Threat  Assessment, 

available 

at: 

Eurostat, EUROPOP 2008 Convergence Scenario; Eurostat, Migration Statistics. 

Flash Eurobarometer 188, "Consular Protection" 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
Flash Eurobarometer 213, "European Union Citizenship" 

Flash Eurobarometer 225, "Data Protection in the European Union. Citizens' Perceptions" 

Flash Eurobarometer 235, "The Rights of the Child" 

FRA 
Report, 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/ar08p2_en.pdf 

Annual 

2008 

FRA 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/wp09_en.pdf 

Programme 

Annual 

Work 

available 

at: 

2009, 

available 

at: 

Frontex,  "External  evaluation  of  the  European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational 
Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union", available 
at: 
http://www.frontex.europa.eu/download/Z2Z4L2Zyb250ZXgvZW4vZGVmYXVsdF9vcGlze
S82Mi8xLzE/cowi_report_final.doc 

International  Centre  for  Missing  and  Exploited  Children,  "Child  Pornography:  Model 
legislation and global review", 2007 

May-Chahal, C., and Herczog, M., "Child sexual abuse in Europe", 2003 

Patrick Belser, Michaelle De Cock, Fahrad Mehran, "Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in 
the World", ILO, Geneva, 2005 

SEC(2004)  1349,  "Annual  report  on  the  development  of  a  common  policy  on  illegal 
immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the return of 
illegal residents" 

SEC(2006) 1010, "Second annual report on the development of a common policy on illegal 
immigration,  smuggling  and  trafficking  of  human  beings,  external  border  controls,  and  the 
return of illegal residents" 

SEC(2006)  1498,  "Progress  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  for  the  External 
Dimension of JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice" 

SEC(2006)  1803,  "Progress  Review  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan 
(2005-2008)" 

SEC(2006) 892, "Second Annual Report on Migration and Integration" 

SEC(2007) 691, "Study on the international law instruments in relation to illegal immigration 
by sea" 

EN 

129 

   EN 

 
SEC(2008)  1971,  "Second  progress  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  "Strategy  for  the 
External Dimension of JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice" 

SEC(2008)  2455,  "Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  Communication 
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Action Plan on 
Drugs (2009-2012) - Impact assessment" 

SEC(2008) 2456, "Report of the final evaluation of the EU drugs action plan (2005-2008)" 

SEC(2008) 2692, "Albania 2008 Progress Report" 

SEC(2008) 2693, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2008 Progress Report" 

SEC(2008) 2694, "Croatia 2008 Progress Report" 

SEC(2008) 2696, "Montenegro 2008 Progress Report" 

SEC(2008) 2697, "Kosovo (Under UNSCR 1244/99) 2008 Progress Report"  

SEC(2008) 2698, " Serbia 2008 Progress Report" 

SEC(2008)  35,  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  development  of  the  second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Progress Report January - June 2007 

SEC(2009)  320,  "Third  annual  report  on  the  development  of  a  common  policy  on  illegal 
immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the return of 
illegal residents" 

Special  Eurobarometer  290,  "The  role  of  the  European  Union  in  Justice,  Freedom  and 
Security policy areas" 

Special Eurobarometer 291, "The attitudes of Europeans towards corruption" 

Special Eurobarometer 296, "Discrimination in the European Union: Perceptions, Experiences 
and Attitudes" 

EN 

130 

   EN