Dutch priorities for the Stockholm Programme

The Netherlands fully supports the main priorities identified in the European
Commission’s Communication on the Stockholm Programme: a Europe of rights, a
Europe of justice, a Europe that protects and a Europe of solidarity. The Netherlands is of
the opinion that the cornerstone of the new programme needs to be ‘building a citizen’s
Europe’. The Netherlands, together with Belgium and Luxembourg, has already
contributed to the preparation of the Stockholm Programme by sending three
memorandums on the subject to the European Commission.
In addition to these three Benelux memorandums, the Netherlands would like to
elaborate on the subjects mentioned below. This document set outs several objectives for
the Stockholm Programme, which the Netherlands believes should be accomplished by
2014. It is based on memorandums sent by the government of the Netherlands to the
Dutch parliament. 1
Justice
Strengthening mutual trust through additional evaluation in criminal matters
JHA policy is based on trust: trust between the EU member states and between the
citizens of the Union, trust in each other’s legal systems and judiciaries and in the
European legal order, between authorities, agencies and politicians, and between the
European institutions themselves. Establishing and maintaining that foundation of trust
requires hard work and close contact. Measures must be taken to preserve and reinforce
that trust, particularly in the light of the far-reaching cooperative mechanisms in JHA that
have been (or will be) agreed.
The recent Commission Communication on the Stockholm Programme rightly mentions
the need to improve existing evaluation practices, in addition to adopting legislation (e.g.
a framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings) and exploring
educational and exchange possibilities for legal professionals. We trust that the Swedish
Presidency would also be willing to include the following principles and proposals:
• besides improving existing evaluation practices, an additional system of
monitoring and evaluation, which moves beyond the mere evaluation of
implementation, needs to be introduced in the context of judicial cooperation in
criminal matters;
• the purpose of (additional) evaluation should be to not only facilitate a better
understanding of national systems, but also strengthen mutual trust;
• additional evaluation should focus thematically on selected aspects of the quality
(effectiveness and efficiency), integrity and equity of national legal systems that
have repeatedly stood in the way of cooperation and hamper the proper
functioning of the European judicial area. Those obstacles should be relevant and
relate to the implementation and application of existing mutual recognition
instruments;

1

Parliamentary Papers, House of Representatives 2008/09, 23 490, no. 557.

1

•
•
•

the starting point of an additional evaluation mechanism is strengthening
without burdening. Duplication and overlap with already existing evaluation
needs to be avoided;
therefore, the findings of earlier EU evaluations and other relevant information,
including evaluation outcomes of other international organisations, such as the
Council of Europe, should form the basis for additional evaluation;
the resultant general or member-state-specific recommendations should be
accompanied by a robust, cyclical follow-up system.

In order to arrive at a more developed proposal for additional evaluation that
complements and elaborates further on the relevant paragraph in the Commission
Communication, the Netherlands is currently working with Germany and France on a
common text proposal for the Stockholm Programme which will take account of the
common position reached on this subject by the Informal Council in Stockholm in July.
Confiscating proceeds of crime
To understand international crime, we have to ‘follow the money’. Financial
investigation is crucial in cases involving crimes such as human trafficking and drug
trafficking, as it enables law enforcement officials to understand the structure, size and
hierarchy of criminal networks and the links with financial and economic crime. To
effectively combat financial and economic crimes, especially money laundering,
corruption and fraud, we have to use and combine all available instruments in tax,
civil and criminal law.
The recent Commission Communication on the Stockholm Programme rightly mentions
the need to strengthen the EU network of asset recovery offices. We trust that the
Swedish Presidency is willing to include the following principles and proposals:
• a general and explicit recognition of financial investigation as an effective
instrument in the fight against serious cross-border (organised) crime;
• the central principle of criminal law policy in the member states and the EU as a
whole must be that criminal assets (and assets of unexplained origin) should
be seized in the most effective way possible, on the basis of criminal law or
whatever other channels are most expedient (tax law, civil law, forfeiture order);
• the policies of the member states and the EU as a whole must treat money
laundering as an independent, transnational phenomenon and dismantle the
infrastructure supporting financial and economic crime;
• the need for more international cooperation in the exchange of information
between law enforcement agencies and asset recovery offices is vital. Member
states and national agencies must work together to seize criminal assets and
combat money laundering and other forms of financial and economic crime.
Cross-border law enforcement practices have to be refined. This can be done
by improving transparency, enhancing communication between national
enforcement agencies, and registering international confiscation cases;
• exploring the legal and practical options for introducing a reverse burden of
proof in confiscating proceeds of crime;
• ensuring that the early seizure of criminal assets becomes common practice in
the course of criminal investigations;
• further developing the principle of mutual recognition in this field, particularly in
relation to seizing goods formally belonging to a third party and, eventually,
to recognizing and executing confiscation decisions, regardless of their legal basis;
• promoting public-private partnership in tracing proceeds of crime, and
• exploring possibilities for asset sharing between member states.

2

Fighting cybercrime
European and international cooperation are essential if we are to fight cybercrime
effectively. This encompasses:
• a greater understanding of the extent and mechanisms of international
cooperation in Europe (also with third countries) in the fight against cybercrime,
so that more joint investigations and joint teams can be set up (where
appropriate, with the help of Europol and Eurojust);
• more cooperation in filtering and blocking websites containing pornographic
images;
• developing public-private partnerships, including with financial institutions;
• eliminating possible obstacles to effective cross-border investigations of
cybercrime (e.g. cross-border searches, surveillance, infiltration). Concerted
efforts should be made to list possible obstacles. This may entail rethinking
current frameworks.
Cybercrime and the external dimension
The Netherlands attaches great importance to furthering cooperation with third
countries in preventing and tackling cybercrime and supports the development of an
appropriate legal framework for dealing with these issues. The Council of Europe
Convention on Cybercrime could serve as a basis for this. The Union should engage in
a dialogue with third countries about cracking down on providers that host illegal
content.
Elimination and Prevention of female genital mutilation
The phenomenon of female genital mutilation (FGM) is a severe violation of human
rights, specifically those of women and girls. The elimination and prevention of FGM must
be high on the European agenda. This way, Europe sends out a clear signal to
communities engaging in the practice, whether within or outside EU borders, to abandon
FGM.
At European level, knowledge sharing on FGM between states has a fundamental value.
The development and exchange of best practices in the fight against FGM would
contribute greatly to this. Furthermore, the mutual exchange and transfer of
knowledge of EU member states with non-EU countries is vital to eliminating and
preventing FGM.
At national level, the actors involved should approach this problem in a multidisciplinary
way and step up mutual cooperation. States should take firm action against FGM in the
areas of prevention, education, social measures and awareness raising. National studies
on the prevalence on FGM are necessary to establish the effectiveness of these
measures. In order to ensure comparison of national studies between EU member states,
the data and indicators used should be harmonised as much as possible.
The practice of FGM must be made illegal in all EU member states so perpetrators
can be punished. EU member states that already have legislation in place should continue
to effectively enforce national laws. European cooperation in the field of criminal justice
could, in some instances, prevent perpetrators from crossing borders to avoid
punishment.
EU member states should define a national strategy and action programme
addressing, among other things, some of the themes listed below:
• effective law enforcement,
• awareness raising and prevention,
• knowledge sharing,

3

•
•
•

(measures in) migration policy,
European cooperation,
prevalence study.

Applying the principle of mutual recognition to mutual assistance in criminal cases
Although our guiding principle is the consolidation of adopted instruments based on
mutual recognition, the current system governing mutual assistance calls for certain
refinements. On the one hand it became clear that the European Arrest Warrant is
frequently issued merely to interrogate suspects, which is not desirable. On the other
hand the European Evidence Warrant, which only deals with certain specific types of
evidence, has given rise to an unfortunate situation whereby two evidence-gathering
regimes now exist for the kind of information that is most needed. For that reason
further steps need to be taken.
To facilitate intra-Union cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of criminal
offences, the principle of mutual recognition should be gradually applied to mutual
assistance in criminal matters, starting with the types of legal assistance most sorely
needed: the interviewing of suspects, witnesses and experts by rogatory
commissions following their transfer, particularly by video conference, as well as the
procedure for search and seizure.
This entails:
• increasing the admissibility of evidence by promoting the compliance with
procedural rules of the issuing member state to the greatest possible extent,
recognising that evidence collected in the territory of the executing member state
should be admissible under the law of the issuing member state, without limiting
the role of the judge/jury to assess such evidence when produced in a specific
trial; and
• ensuring that these new instruments guarantee that the procedural safeguards of
the parties involved are equivalent to those in place for national proceedings.
Civil law cooperation
Consolidation of civil law
The many instruments that have recently emerged in the area of civil procedural law and
the often subtle differences between them can be confusing for citizens who are trying to
understand their options for legal redress. To make the law more accessible to ordinary
citizens, it is necessary to consolidate and harmonise existing instruments and
remove as much discrepant terminology as possible.
A more uniform approach to procedural questions in civil law, in instruments meant for
areas besides JHA
The Committee on Civil Law Matters should have a more prominent role in the creation of
procedural rules in other European instruments to prevent the further fragmentation
of such rules. The Committee should be put in a position to contribute to a uniform
approach to issues related to civil procedural law (e.g. information gathering and
disclosure, evidence or collective redress of mass claims) in instruments in areas
besides JHA.
Civil law cooperation and the external dimension
Regarding external cooperation in the area of civil law, the Netherlands feels that third
countries should become party to existing international treaties, including the Hague
Conference on Private International Law, and implement their provisions accordingly. If
necessary, the Union can assist these countries in the implementation and enforcements
of these treaties. In other words, in matters of civil law, multilateral cooperation is
preferable to bilateral cooperation between the EU and third countries. The Netherlands

4

believes it would be ill-advised for the EU to engage in dialogue about civil law
cooperation with third countries whose legal systems are not based upon the rule of law.
If a decision is made to draft European legislation, it should complement existing or
planned multilateral treaties in this area.
In addition, the Netherlands is pursuing improved information-sharing practices with
regard to international adoption between the EU and its member states and the Hague
Conference on Private International Law, on the basis of the Hague Adoption Convention
of 1993.
Home Affairs
Internal security strategy
The Netherlands supports the development of an Internal Security Strategy, as set out in
the Commission’s communication, and would like to make an active contribution to this
goal. The Dutch aims with regard to the substance of the strategy are as follows:
• The strategy must cover the entire security domain, meaning not only the fight
against organised crime, but also any threat to the internal security of the EU
(‘all-hazard approach’). Under this view, counterterrorism and crisis
management (for both intentional and non-intentional crises) also have a place in
the security strategy.
• In line with the Commission’s communication, the EU security strategy will have
to address improving operational cooperation, at both EU and regional
level, for example within the framework of cross-border cooperation. Obstacles
that may arise to accomplish a cross border approach for security issues should
be removed.
• The strategy must focus on a multidisciplinary approach to crime. Not only
the police and the criminal justice authorities, but other government partners
like the Tax and Customs Administration and the municipalities can play a role in
fighting crime. For this reason we should aim to achieve an internally coherent
mix of preventive, administrative and criminal law measures.
• It is important to identify regional risks using EU-wide risk analyses, such as
OCTA (for organised crime) and TE-SAT (for counterterrorism). Civil protection
should be part of any internal security strategy.
• Strengthening civil protection in the EU by:
o making civil protection part of the internal security strategy;
o conducting an EU-wide risk analysis designed to identify regional and
generic risks (all-hazard approach), developing scenarios and coordinating
capacities;
o strengthening regional cooperation between member states (prevention as
response) for regional risks;
o establishing a stronger coordinating role for the EU in relation to generic
risks (e.g. MIC, module system, expert group).
(If this paragraph does not fall under the heading of internal security strategy,
the Netherlands believes that this should be a separate section of the
Stockholm Programme, see Plan B).
• The strategy must devote sufficient attention to the role of European agencies like
Europol, Eurojust and Frontex and to certain mechanisms, especially OCTA.
Plan B: civil protection
The current system for working together on matters of civil protection will have to be
further enhanced and expanded in the years ahead. The Stockholm Programme offers
the EU the opportunity to develop a joint, integrated vision of civil protection, in addition
to improving existing instruments. In this connection, the Netherlands is in favour of:

5

•
•
•

an ‘all-hazard’ approach to civil protection that covers not only natural disasters,
but also other socially disruptive risks, like energy shortages, pandemics and the
degradation of vital infrastructure;
an EU-wide risk analysis designed to identify regional and generic risks, followed
by the development of scenarios and coordination of capacities;
a stronger regional cooperation between member states on the basis of the risk
analysis (both prevention and response) and a stronger coordinating role for the
EU with respect to generic risks.

Administrative approach
Combating and preventing organised crime requires an integrated approach on the part
of the competent authorities. The use of instruments over and above those afforded by
criminal law is chiefly effective in preventing and eliminating links between the
‘upperworld’ and the underworld. With this in mind, the Netherlands would urge that the
following principles be set down in the Stockholm Programme.
• The European arsenal of police and criminal justice instruments to combat
organised crime should be augmented by a category of administrative
instruments, including screenings and the option to reject a permit or grant
application.
• In addition to law enforcement agencies, other authorities (such as those at local
level) should actively lend a hand in the fight against organised crime. These
partners and their various roles should be described in detail.
• OCTA must include an overview of factors and government measures which
individuals abuse to engage in criminal acts.
• Partly on the basis of the aforementioned overview, agreements should be made
by the JHA Council, when it comes time to set European priorities, about erecting
barriers between the upperworld and underworld.
• To ensure that government decisions do not inadvertently facilitate criminal acts,
it should be possible to screen applicants for permits and grants under
European law. If sufficient grounds are found, it should be possible to reject their
applications.
• There will be increased monitoring of legal persons.
• To be able to screen both natural and legal persons, member states should be
able to have access to each other’s information. The regulations governing such
exchanges are set down at European level.
Counterterrorism and the prevention of radicalisation
Monitoring
It is important to monitor the implementation of the EU Strategy and Action Plan
to Combat Terrorism, and to assess its effectiveness. The emphasis should be on the
continuity of the efforts, the multidisciplinary approach to fighting terrorism, the
operational dimension and the cooperation between EU member states, with EU bodies
like Europol and Eurojust, and with key third countries and international organisations
like the UN.
Prevention and deradicalisation
Further implementation of the EU Strategy and Action Plan on Radicalisation and
Recruitment is essential. The initial focus should be on the prevention and detection of
radicalisation at an early stage: through a well-balanced, local preventive approach,
community policing, a close association of the various players within civil society and a
well-balanced EU communication strategy that would highlight the actions taken by the
Union in the field of human rights, crisis management, development aid and technical
assistance, and in offering ‘alternative narratives’ and making proactive use of the
internet.

6

The need to strengthen the local approach to radicalisation should be explicitly
included in the Stockholm Programme, with reference to the following points:
• A network of local professionals should be set up by 2010. Within this network,
quality standards will be developed for training courses.
• A European manual of good practices for tackling radicalisation should be
drawn up by member states and updated annually.
• In 2009 the Netherlands is organising the first ‘Cities Conference’, a forum for
sharing experiences on the local approach to radicalisation. It would be useful to
hold similar conferences every year (with an alternating host country).
• Knowledge and capacity need to be developed to limit crises and social upheaval
as a result of terrorist attacks.
• The Union and its member states should put an extra effort into supporting
projects aimed at de-radicalising extremist individuals or groups and
exchanging best practices. In this respect it should be stressed that other actors
(like local community leaders) could play a useful role as intermediaries.
• Finally, it is of crucial importance to share good practices and develop measures
aimed at preventing the use of the internet for terrorist purposes, such as
radicalisation. Special attention should be paid to public-private partnerships and
the enhancement of industry self-regulation, in order to erase unwanted content
on the internet.
SitCen and Europol
It is vital to ensure a common understanding of the phenomenon of terrorism, in
particular through the analysis produced by SitCen. Ensuring a proper follow-up to the
SitCen analysis, especially from the point of view of its policy implications, is of utmost
importance. The collection, transmission and analysis of information should remain the
core business of Europol in the years ahead. In addition:
•
•
•

Europol should strengthen its position as a centre of excellence on technical and
non-technical aspects of the modus operandi of criminal and terrorist activities.
Once Europol becomes more adept at handling its current range of duties, it is
worth considering whether that body should be given more powers over the long
run.
Cooperation between Europol and SitCen should be enhanced (e.g. through
joint strategic analyses and a better follow-up to the analysis products), and
between Europol and Frontex (e.g. through joint risk analysis, joint operations, a
better follow-up on the information and products of each organisation).

Counterterrorism and the external dimension
Strengthening the external action of the EU in the area of counterterrorism is of
great importance. Essential elements are: contributing to prevention; dealing with
radicalisation, de-radicalisation and reintegration in key third countries; promoting
technical assistance, and reflecting on a coherent EU external policy that integrates CT
aspects, in order to effectively combat terrorism and radicalisation. In addition, media
diversity should be supported in certain high-risk countries.
The protection of human rights should remain an integral part of all counterterrorism
policies. Finally, the Union should continue to promote the implementation of the UN
counterterrorism strategy and the adoption of the UN counterterrorism convention.
Evaluation
Since 2001 many new legal instruments and policies have been agreed in the field of
counterterrorism. The Union should assess whether these new legal instruments and
policies are still up to date, effective and proportional and whether these need to be
continued or improved. In order to increase public support for its counterterrorism
policies and to enhance transparency, the Union and its member states should look into
whether documents which are currently classified can be made public.

7

Asylum and migration
Return in EU external policy
In the Netherlands’ view, the return of third-country nationals to their countries of
origin or to transit countries should be a precondition in EU external policy for financial,
economic, security-related and development cooperation with these countries. The EU’s
economic and political weight should be used more effectively by the Commission in
negotiations on return and readmission agreements. More effective use should also be
made of the good relations that certain member states have with certain countries of
origin, by involving those member states more prominently in such negotiations. The
progress of these negotiations should be discussed regularly in the Council.
Internal and external solidarity
In the current situation, in which the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is not
yet complete and the asylum systems in some member states are under great strain,
solidarity among member states is crucial.
• The Netherlands favours practical, operational cooperation between member
states in the enforcement of the existing asylum acquis, including capacity
building in
asylum procedures, repatriation and the reception of asylum seekers. These forms
of cooperation build member states’ confidence in one another’s asylum systems
and promote further harmonisation. The European Asylum Support Office
(EASO), GDISC and the existing solidarity funds have a major role to play in this
respect.
• At this stage the Netherlands views voluntary, intra-EU relocation of
recognised refugees as another way of giving temporary support to member
states that are facing a major burden from asylum seekers. In the interests of all
member states, however, care should be taken that this relocation does not
attract new waves of asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.
• In the longer term, after the CEAS has been established and evaluated, mutual
recognition of asylum decisions and the need for a more permanent form of
intra-EU relocation may be considered.
• At the same time external solidarity should be extended to transit countries and
countries of origin. This external solidarity, too, should involve practical
cooperation and capacity building in these countries, in the areas of border
control, repatriation and the design of asylum procedures and reception centres.
• In third countries (regions of origin), external solidarity should also include
improvements to refugee protection and such lasting solutions as return,
local integration and resettlement.
• The Netherlands does not support the Commission’s proposed procedures for
protected entry and the issue of humanitarian visas at embassies.
• Cooperation with international organisations like IOM and UNHCR, on matters
like the implementation of a European resettlement policy, and the ratification
and implementation of the Refugee Convention and Protocol also fall,
where relevant, under the heading of external solidarity.
• In this connection, the Netherlands would urge that the two studies on the
feasibility of internal and external processing proposed in the Hague
Programme still be conducted.
Incident reporting mechanism
An integrated approach to monitoring the EU’s external borders means that incidents
that occur during operations coordinated by Frontex will be fully investigated by the
competent authorities. To this end, the Netherlands attaches great importance to
including a mechanism in the Frontex Regulation on gathering information on such

8

matters and reporting it to the relevant authorities (e.g. the European Commission, as
guardian of Community law). The reporting mechanism would also help increase public
support for participation in Frontex operations, by demonstrating that incidents will be
tackled in a satisfactory manner.
Abuse and fraud in family reunification/family migration
The Netherlands feels that the family reunification directive should do more to combat
abuse and fraud by migrants and sponsors, as well as such undesirable aspects of
family migration as polygamy, forced marriages and honour-related violence.
• To this end, in addition to existing requirements regarding sponsors for family
migration, it should be possible to impose other requirements related to public
order, especially concerning domestic violence, so as to avoid subjecting
migrants to coercion or violence or consigning them to a position of inequality or
dependence on their admission to or arrival in the EU.
• The Netherlands also attaches importance to ensuring that migrants are
sufficiently equipped to take part in society, in the Netherlands or elsewhere in
Europe, and do not immediately find themselves in a position of inequality or
dependence once they arrive. This demands an effort from the host society, and
certainly the migrant and his or her partner in the Netherlands. The requirements
for integration set out in the family reunification directive should do more to help
ensure that migrants and their partners have an adequate level of education and
are thus capable of playing an independent part in society.
Asylum/migration and the external dimension
The general framework for the external dimension of asylum and migration is provided
by the Global Approach to Migration.
The Netherlands supports the development of EU programmes that:
• combat braindrain and promote brain gain;
• encourage the diaspora, migrant organisations and the use of remittances to
boost the development of countries of origin;
• promote good governance and the economic development of countries of
origin and transit countries.
The Union should be more vigorous in using its political and economic weight in
negotiating with third countries over matters of return and readmission.
Greater attention should also be given to resettlement, mobility partnerships and
multi-year regional protection programmes, for the purpose of providing protection,
stimulating development and supporting countries of origin. In raising the level of
protection given to refugees in the region, it is crucial to involve the various EU policy
areas (development cooperation, humanitarian aid and foreign policy) and to enhance
their mutual coherence.
Finally, in its dealings with third countries, the Union has a responsibility to actively
convey the importance of acceding to and implementing the Refugee Convention
Protocol.
Protection/Common European Asylum System
As the Netherlands sees it, the purpose of creating the CEAS (to be up and running by
2012) is to ensure that the member states’ asylum systems are set up in such a way that
a person seeking international protection within the EU can be assured of the same
outcome from any member state. With this end in mind, besides completing and
implementing this second phase of the harmonisation of asylum legislation, we will also
need to step up our practical, operational cooperation, thereby encouraging more

9

confidence in national asylum systems and allowing EASO to foster member states’
convergence on the basis of practice. GDISC can also continue to play a major role in
this regard. Finally, Eurodac should become not only a supporting tool for the Dublin
Regulation, but for the entire CEAS.
European resettlement policy
The Netherlands trusts that the Swedish Presidency is in favour of including an
ambitious section on a European resettlement policy for refugees recognised by the
member states, as a demonstration of solidarity with third countries, along the lines of
the Commission Communication of 3 September on this subject. After the CEAS has
become operational, the Netherlands would be interested in exploring the possibility of
eventually introducing a European quota. Within the Union, it will also be necessary to
reach agreements and work together on such issues as joint selection missions, joint predeparture activities and a joint clearinghouse function.
Borders
The Netherlands supports a European border control process that uses the latest
technology, such as automatic border passage, along with integrated risk
inventories and assessments. This will ensure a system that is both effective and
efficient, promoting the mobility of bona fide travellers, halting illegal immigration,
setting the stage for close cooperation with countries on the EU’s eastern borders and
around the Mediterranean Sea, and contributing to the overall security of the Schengen
area.
Free movement of persons
The Netherlands joins the Commission in stressing the importance of the right of the free
movement of EU citizens as well as the principle that this right also entails certain
obligations for these citizens. We would welcome a study of not only the scope of the
definition and the applicability of the concept ‘public policy’ in the relevant directive
2004/38/EC, but also the options for tightening external border controls in connection
with EU citizens who may pose a danger to public policy and national security. The
Netherlands would also be in favour of a system of registration and notification
between member states that would allow them to ascertain if certain individuals are
abusing the legal opportunities available under Community law. Finally, the Netherlands
would like to see an investigation of problems related to immigration and integration that
have been caused by intra-EU mobility.
Horizontal issues
Optimising information-sharing
In the interests of combating crime, terrorism and illegal migration, the Netherlands
attaches importance to optimising the conditions for information-sharing on legislation,
procedures and ICT systems among EU member states’ investigative and law
enforcement agencies. To this end, we propose including the following objectives in the
Stockholm Programme.
• Reciprocal access to each other’s information, based on the principles of mutual
recognition, availability and convergence, should be developed and fleshed out
step-by-step and bottum-up.
• The Swedish Framework Decision and the Prüm Council Decision provide
opportunities for direct exchanges of information between organisational units on
the lower level of the different EU countries’ national contact points. The
Netherlands attaches importance to the development of EU measures to ensure

10

•
•
•

that this actually takes place. An initial precondition for this is the promotion of
the relevant governmental organisations’ professionalism in the area of
international cooperation, for instance by means of certification.
It must also be made possible to use existing European central databases, such as
VIS, Eurodac and FIDE, for law enforcement purposes. This will require
extending and deepening the ways in which these databases can be used.
Europol should be positioned as the preferred channel for exchanges, and
following its evaluation the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics
(MAOC-N) should be given a more structural role in the Europol organisation.
Use should be made of existing European ICT standards and facilities, such as sTesta, Europol/SIENA and the European interoperability framework.

The Netherlands aims at the adoption of a systematic approach to optimising
information-sharing, so as to avoid a proliferation of legal instruments, procedures and
ICT systems. For this reason, we support the Swedish Presidency’s development of the
Information Management System (IMS). We also favour the development of a European
information model as part of the IMS, as the Commission proposes. The Netherlands
attaches importance to:
• the attainment of short- and long-term goals within the IMS framework;
• linkages of the European information model, on the one hand, to existing and new
technologies as well as to enhanced confidence and professional expertise at EU
level, on the other;
• the extension of the IMS to the full range of JHA issues, so that the IMS covers
not only combating crime, terrorism and illegal immigration but also customs
and border controls;
• the facilitation of the extention of data linkages where necessary;
• provision by the IMS of scope for bi- or multilateral initiatives that are in
conformity with IMS principles;
• increased interoperability by means of standardisation, particularly through the
development of common standards.
In the Netherlands’ view, data protection is an essential part of the IMS project for
information-sharing between member states. The Netherlands attaches great importance
to the provision of dual protection – protection of both public safety and of
privacy – by the systems that are developed. The best way to provide this dual
protection in making decisions about information-sharing is by subjecting use of this
information to adequate safeguards. The safeguards should comprise, among other
things, adequate procedures for supervision, monitoring and legal protection. At the
same time, they will also depend on the establishment of appropriate systems and on the
technologies available for data protection.
The Netherlands also supports the promotion of intelligence-led law enforcement
(investigation, border controls and maintenance of public order and safety) in EU
countries and the further development of joint intelligence-led law enforcement at EU
level (ECIM, Europol and OCTA). Achieving this goal demands:
• encouraging exchanges of more criminal intelligence between EU countries in the
service of national analyses; and
• more joint analyses and threat assessments at EU level or within subsets
of the EU. The Netherlands also supports the further development of joint
counterterrorist analyses. It is important that these analyses where appropriate
include proposals for policy follow-up.
One instrument for intelligence-led law enforcement is profiling (the use of information
to facilitate targeted searches for people or objects that fit a given risk profile), especially
in the fulfilment of monitoring and control tasks. This instrument should be further
developed at EU level. In some countries Passenger Name Records (PNR) are used to

11

profile passengers who may be involved (either as traffickers or victims) in drugs or
human trafficking. With regard to the use of this instrument, the Netherlands attaches
great importance to due weight being given to proportionality, protection of privacy, care
in the use of information, and limited duration of data storage for profiling purposes.
Information-sharing and the external dimension
The Netherlands supports the development of an adequate EU framework for efficient,
secure information-sharing for law enforcement purposes between the Union, EU bodies
and EU member states, on the one hand, and third countries, on the other hand, on the
basis of transparent, sound arrangements for the protection of privacy. In this
connection, the expected conclusion of an EU-US agreement on the sharing and
protection of information in the field of law enforcement is a major step in the right
direction. The standards that will be included in that agreement could possibly also play
a role in assessing the level of data protection in other third countries, and could possibly
serve as an example in concluding similar agreements with other third countries.
Creating the EU framework mentioned above would have the additional advantage of
facilitating Europol and Eurojust’s work in concluding such agreements with third
countries.
Fighting trafficking in human beings
The Netherlands believes that the fight against trafficking in human beings (THB)
should be an EU priority and should be approached in a multidisciplinary way.
Cooperation against THB should be improved both between member states and between
the EU and third (source and transit) countries.
The Council will adopt a new EU Strategy to fight THB in early 2010, based on a
proposal from the Commission. On the basis of this Strategy, an Action Plan will be
drafted detailing what actions need to be taken at European level to fight THB. The fight
against THB calls for a multidisciplinary approach, involving policies on visa and
migration, prevention, administrative measures, law enforcement, protection of victims
and JHA external relations. All these policy areas should be reflected in the strategy. It
should also include a passage on looking into ways of improving information-sharing
between EU member states in order to match police and migration data with data in
public registers, such as those of chambers of commerce, municipalities and customs.
Fighting trafficking in human beings and the external dimension
The strategy will be complemented by the Action-Oriented Paper on tackling THB, which
also needs to be implemented in the years ahead. The Netherlands very much welcomes
the Swedish initiative to draft such an Action-Oriented Paper, which will be helpful in
improving cooperation with source and transit countries.
Combating drugs and the external dimension
The fight against drugs production and trafficking needs to be stepped up. Closer
cooperation with source and transit countries (outside the EU) is necessary. West
African countries that are increasingly involved in transit should be supported in tackling
the problem. This demands effective coordination and cooperation among member states
and with third countries and other relevant international partners.
A coherent EU external policy that fully embraces JHA issues
EU external policy in the dimension of Freedom, Security and Justice has expanded
enormously since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Partly as a result of
globalisation, increased mobility and the fight against international terrorism, external
cooperation has been stepped up substantially in recent years.

12

In the Netherlands’ view, none of the internal objectives that have been posed as part of
the Stockholm Programme can be attained without making use of European Union’s
external policy instruments intended for this purpose. For this reason, we favour
including in the Stockholm Programme a new, updated strategy for
JHA/External Relations. In general, the Netherlands supports integrating the
external dimension of JHA policy into a coherent general EU external policy. In
this way, in cooperation with third countries, the rule of law can be advanced; illegal
immigration, transborder crime and terrorism can be more effectively combated (for
example by minimising the factors that contribute to terrorism and radicalisation); and
policy on migration and development can be structurally embedded. In addition, a
coherent international legal order is conducive to better understanding and use of that
legal order by governments and citizens. Supplementing the external aspects of the
various topics discussed above, the Netherlands would also like to emphasise the
following themes.
Coherence
The strengthening of JHA policy coherence that the Netherlands considers necessary
should be manifested in several distinct areas.
• Firstly, better coordination is needed between JHA and other European
policy areas. For example, before other EU policies are adopted with external
implications or effects (in the fields of e.g. development cooperation, agricultural
and fisheries policy, environmental policy and trade policy), the possible impact of
those new policies on JHA – e.g. the possibility of their fostering crime or leading
to undesirable migration flows – should be examined. Ways should also be
considered of bringing about more synergy between the objectives aimed at in
providing EU external aid and those aimed at by JHA policies, as in the areas of
promoting the rule of law, regulating migration and combating crime and
terrorism.
• Secondly, the increased institutional complexity of JHA policy demands better
coordination between the external activities of the European Commission, the
Council formations and such agencies as Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, Cepol and the
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
• It is also advisable for the member states and EU to coordinate their
approaches as much as possible in negotiations in international forums with third
countries. Sending third countries a common message strengthens the EU’s
position as a global partner.
• Finally, the principle of coherence implies that the EU should urge third countries
to accede to existing agreements when adequate forms of multilateral
international cooperation are available under the auspices of e.g. the UN, the
Council of Europe or the Hague Conference for Private International Law, rather
than creating new instruments.
Human rights
The Netherlands is endeavouring to bring about further improvements to European
human rights policy, and will support EU initiatives to raise the profile of Union human
rights interventions. We will make a special effort to promote, at national and
multinational level as well as through joint EU lobbying, the implementation of EU
guidelines that have been adopted. We support an EU human rights policy that
complements the already existing Council of Europe instruments, and are
devoting ourselves to promoting closer cooperation between these two organisations on
specific human rights programmes. The EU’s anticipated accession to the ECHR is a
major step forward.
Promotion of the rule of law and respect for human rights should be a general
principle underlying all aspects of EU external policy. Third countries with which the EU
concludes agreements should be spurred on where necessary to accede to appropriate
international human rights conventions and the corresponding monitoring mechanisms.

13

The Union should provide these countries assistance as necessary with implementing
these conventions. Wherever third countries fall short with regard to the rule of law and
respect for human rights, the Union should in principle limit itself to non-operational
cooperation aimed at building capacity in the field of and reinforcing the rule of law.
Geographical priorities
In the Netherlands’ view, while different priorities should be set in different policy areas,
the EU’s Eastern partners, third countries in the Mediterranean region, the candidate
countries, the Western Balkans, West Africa, the United States and the Russian
Federation are in general the geographical priority areas. This does not mean that a fullfledged JHA partnership is advisable with every priority country. As said before, we
consider it in principle inadvisable for the EU to discuss future cooperation in the areas of
criminal or civil law with third countries that do not have legal systems founded on the
rule of law.
The Netherlands proposes that a schematic overview be drawn up, on the basis of a
thorough analysis, of what partnerships and instruments already exist on which JHA
issues with which third countries and regions; of what their results have been in practice;
and where these partnerships could be modified or extended. Such an overview could
then provide a basis for considering the desirability of deepening the EU’s JHA
relationships with China, India and the Latin American countries. It could also be a basis
for considering the possibility of making new partnership agreements with other
countries. In adopting partnership agreements with third countries, as much use as
possible should be made of standard texts and clauses. The Stockholm action plan
should include a more detailed version of such an analysis.
The Netherlands also believes that the existing JHA provisions in the many agreements
that the EU has concluded with third countries could be used to better advantage. In the
dialogues with third countries under these agreements, partner countries should be more
sharply called to account about the JHA commitments they have made.

14