Toespraak van minister Hirsch Ballin: 'the future of EU's internal security architecture and police cooperation'
Ladies and gentlemen,
I sincerely hope that all of you have enjoyed today’s discussions, in this lovely and historic environment of Clingendael. I consider it a great pleasure to be given the opportunity to share some thoughts with you at the end of this seminar. Considering the items on the agenda of this afternoon’s meeting and the quality of the keynote speakers, I am confident you must have had a very interesting and fruitful discussion. I will make sure that I will be briefed more in depth about the outcome of your discussions.
The issues you have discussed today are of great importance to the future of a European approach towards cross-border crime and terrorism. We will discuss the same issues at the ministerial level tomorrow.
The public in general and law enforcement officials in particular often characterise the process of European integration - to use a Dutch expression - as “slow like a snail”, and “without delivering concrete results for today’s problems”. Although this is understandable from a short term perspective, and, in particular, from the perspective of a law enforcement officer who is involved in a concrete cross-border investigation, there is also another perspective. I have had the privilege to be present at the very first meeting of the Third Pillar Council in 1993. And if I compare the degree of police and judicial cooperation in the European Union in 1993 to that in 2009, we certainly have made tremendous progress. In the last sixteen years:
we have formed organisations like Europol, Eurojust and Frontex and developed them further,
we have achieved closer cooperation in the area of mutual legal assistance on the basis of the EU Agreement of 2000 and also implemented several framework decisions based on the principle of mutual recognition
and, finally, we had two multi-annual work programmes to give political direction in area of Justice and Home Affairs, namely the Tampere Programme in 1999 and the Hague Programme in 2004.
Today we are on the eve of the birth of the Stockholm Programme, that will set new goals in this area for the next five years. Both Ms. Svenson and Mr Nunes de Almeida of the European Commission have addressed this issue today.
The Netherlands fully support the main priorities as identified in the communication on the Stockholm Programme adopted by the European Commission, namely a Europe of rights, a Europe of justice, a Europe that protects and a Europe of solidarity. Together with Belgium and Luxemburg, the Dutch government has contributed actively to the “Stockholm Process’ at an early stage of the process. I would also like to refer to a recent position paper by the Dutch government, that was been presented recently, on Friday the 18th of September, to the Swedish Presidency. I will not repeat the content of this paper, for the moment I would like to focus more specifically on some aspects of the future of police and judicial cooperation.
Although criminal law is traditionally linked with the core of a national legal order and national identity, it is my strong personal belief that criminal law will be regulated increasingly at the European level in the future. Just as the free movement of goods in the Union could only be completed by harmonisation of national legislation and mutual recognition of the national legislation of Member States, the fully free movement of persons in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice requires a certain degree of harmonisation of legislation and mutual recognition of the criminal law of Member States. It also requires the encouragement of mutual trust among Member States and intensified operational cooperation between police and judicial authorities. Once the Lisbon Treaty will have entered into force, new possibilities will arise to continue to improve police and judicial cooperation, including the functioning of organisations such as Europol and Eurojust.
But, we shouldn’t wait for the new Treaty to become effective. The threat of transnational crime is too serious. We must take swift action to improve the police and judicial cooperation within the existing legal framework. I will give you three examples:
1. Focus on practical cooperation, together with those countries that face similar problems.
In the border regions of the Netherlands, Dutch law enforcement authorities have developed very close cooperation with their German and Belgian colleagues. They join forces in fighting drugs trafficking, the production of synthetic drugs and cannabis cultivation, and human trafficking. This cooperation, which started on a case-to-case basis, has developed over the years. We currently have a more structured and systematic form of cooperation in which common priorities are set, the necessary information between law enforcement officers is exchanged, and joint investigations are carried out. This has resulted in increasing knowledge of each other’s judicial systems and to mutual trust. I am convinced that there are similar forms of smaller-scale, regional cooperations in other Member States. It is worthwhile to share these good practices at European level.
2. Step up cooperation with Europol
In order to fight transnational crime effectively, law enforcement authorities must have access to reliable information and analyses that are relevant and useful for the law enforcement practice. These analyses should be made by Europol on the basis of information supplied by Member States. We all know -and we acknowledge this at seminars like this one today- that there is certainly room for improvement in the cooperation between the Member States and Europol. But perhaps we should stop talking and start acting. Last year, the Netherlands, together with six other Member States, started a concrete project together with Europol, on the basis of several police investigations into criminal networks dealing with human trafficking. The aim of this project -of course, apart from successful law enforcement operations- is to find practical solutions. Solutions to bridge the gap between operational needs and requirements of law enforcement agencies set on Europol and vice versa.
3. Better implementation of OCTA-priorities
The Organised Crime Threat Assessment (hereafter referred to as: the OCTA) of Europol serves as a basis for EU-prioritization for fighting serious and organised crime. This means that two important steps have been taken: we have an EU-wide assessment of organised crime, and the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers set common priorities for the fight against serious and organised crime. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating: common EU-priorities are only valuable, if Member States actually implement these priorities at the national level. This means that the national priorities for fighting organised crime should reflect the EU-priorities, set on the basis of the OCTA. It also means that law enforcement agencies in Member States should deploy enough means for international cooperation and joint cross-border operations. This may require more direction and coordination, both at the operational and the political level. This would, among other things, also imply a more active and stronger supporting role for both Europol and Eurojust.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that my words have given you some food for thought. I will continue this discussion of today’s issues with my European colleagues. I thank you again for having given the opportunity to say a few words at the end of this seminar and I will not keep you any longer from the final item of your programme: social gathering and drinks!