![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Internal security objectives gain an increasing influence on the foreign policy of the European Union and it has thus become essential to understand the external role and activities of one of the most significant actors in the European internal security regime – Europol. Looking at three topical issues related to Europol's external activities, this article is an attempt to assess the impact of Europol on the EU's external policy and to sketch some of the dynamics underpinning the development of the external dimension of Justice and Home Affairs.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a series of interviews conducted during an internship at Europol in 2007 and 2008. All statements and conclusions are the author's own, for which Europol cannot be held responsible.
Notes
1 The Europol Convention came into force on 1 October 1998 and Europol started operating in The Hague on 1 July 1999.
2 According to Europol Annual Report (2007, p. 32), the number of messages exchanged between MS via Europol infrastructure rose by 86% between 2000 and 2007, while the number of operational cases initiated by this exchange of information rose by 75% in the same period.
3 Qualified majority voting in Council and co-decision will be applied to police and justice cooperation in criminal matters, amounting to a ‘communitarisation’ of the so-called ‘third pillar’.
4 Article 88 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5 Hereafter the ‘JHA/Relex Strategy’.
6 Which allow direct exchange of information.
7 Europol Convention, Official Journal, C316, 27 November 1995, pp. 2–32.
8 Ibid.
9 Council Decision of 6 December 2001 extending Europol's mandate to deal with serious forms of international crime listed in the Annex to the Europol Convention, Official Journal, C362, 18 December 2001, p. 1.
10 Article 6 of Europol Convention.
11 Article 8 of Europol Convention and Article 12 of Europol Council Decision.
12 See, for instance, the Europol's annual OCTA (Organised Crime Threat Assessment), or the TE-SAT (EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report), and various other specialised reports. Available online at www.europol.europa.eu.
13 Article 10 of Europol Convention and Article 14 of Europol Council Decision.
14 Council Decision of 27 March 2000 authorizing the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations on agreements with third states and non-EU related bodies, Official Journal, C106, 13 April 2000, pp. 1–2.
15 Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Republic Czech, Slovakia and Slovenia.
16 Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
17 The ten new MS joined the EU on 1 May 2004, while they joined Europol on 1 September 2004.
18 Provisions laid down in Article 26 of the Europol Convention will be taken up in Article 2 of the Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (ECD).
19 Article 23 of the Europol Council Decision.
20 Article 42(2) of the Convention. See also Nilsson (Citation2003, p. 202), Rijken (Citation2001) and Heimans (Citation2008).
21 Council Act of 3 November 1998 laying down rules governing Europol's external relations with third states and non-EU related bodies, Official Journal, C26, 30 January 1999, p. 19. Council Act of 3 November 1998 laying down the rules concerning the receipt of information by Europol from third parties, Official Journal, C26, 30 January 1999, p. 3. Council Act of 28 February 2002 amending the Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting the rule governing the transmission of personal data by Europol to third states and third bodies, Official Journal, C76, 27 March 2002, pp. 1–2. Act of the Management Board of Europol of 15 October 1998 laying down the rules governing Europol's external relations with European Union-related bodies, Official Journal, C26, p. 10.
22 Article 42(2) of the Convention and Article 23 of Europol Council Decision.
23 In the field of data protection Europol's activities are controlled by the Joint Supervisory Board. Composed of representatives of each of the national supervisory bodies, the JSB is an independent body whose task is ‘to ensure that the rights of the individual are not violated by the storage, processing and utilisation of the data held by Europol’. The JSB also monitors the ‘permissibility of the transmission of data originating from Europol’ (See Article 24 of Europol Convention or Article 34 of Europol Council Decision).
24 Europol's main control body, the Management Board comprises one representative of each MS (Ministries of Interior or Justice) and one representative of the European Commission (no voting status). It supervises all the activities of Europol by determining its priorities and functioning rules, ranging from rights and obligations of liaison officers to the adoption of the financial regulation. All issues which have to be decided by the Council of Ministers have first to be endorsed by the Management Board. As such the MB exercise a significant influence over Europol's future (see Article 28 of the Convention and Article 37 of ECD).
25 Council Decision of 27 March 2000 authorizing the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations on agreements with third states and non-EU related bodies, Official Journal, C106, 13 April 2000, pp. 1–2. For instance, for Australia, see Council Decision of 2 December 2004 amending the Council Decision of 27 March 2000, Official Journal, C317, p. 1 or, for the Western Balkans, see Council Decision of 13 June 2002 amending the Council Decision of 27 March 2000, Official Journal, C150, 22 June 2002, p. 1.
26 Under the Lisbon Treaty, the Council no longer acts unanimously but according to qualified majority voting.
27 Article 42(1) of the Convention and Article 22 of Europol Council Decision.
28 As stated in Article 14 of Europol Convention (Article 27 ECD), Europol's standard of data protection are based on the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 28 January 1981 and on the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (87) 15 Regulating the use of personal data in the Police Sector of 17 September 1987.
29 Strategic agreements: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, FYROM, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine and the EMCDDA, the General Secretariat of the Council for SitCen and civilian ESDP missions, the European Commission, OLAF, Frontex, UNODC and WCO. Operational agreements: Australia, Canada, Croatia, Eurojust, Interpol, Island, Monaco, Norway, Switzerland and the USA.
30 Draft agreement between Europol and USA, 13359/01, 31 October 2001, signed on 6 December 2001.
31 According to the Chairman of Europol Joint Supervisory Body, Mr Türk, there are ‘major differences in the philosophy of personal data between the US and Europe’. As Mitsilegas (Citation2003) notesUnlike the EU, the USA does not have a central authority responsible for the supervision and control of the use of personal data and there is no structured data protection legislation. Personal data in the USA have a “market value” which depends on the rules of the functioning of the economy.
32 From the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the US Secret Service (USSS), the US Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
33 In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, the context changed and India was included on the list by the Council in 2009.
34 Council Act of 3 November 1998 laying down the rules concerning the receipt of information by Europol from third parties, Official Journal, C26, 30 January 1999, p. 3.
35 Joint statement of the EU–Russia Permanent Partnership Council Meeting in Freedom, Security and Justice, 24–25 April 2008, St Petersburg, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 21–25 April 2008. Available at www.In.mid.ru.
36 Article 24(2) of the ECD.
37 Quoted in Sissenich (Citation2004).
38 Strategic cooperation agreements were signed with all the Western Balkans countries. Bosnia-Herzegovina on 26 January 2007, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on 16 February 2007, Albania on 5 February 2007. Serbia and Montenegro were prevented from signing an agreement due to the division of the two countries in 2006 and the start of new negotiations with each entity. Serbia finally signed an agreement on 18 September 2008 and Montenegro on 17 September 2008.
39 Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and Serbia.
40 Article 17 TEU.
41 The rule of law mission EULEX Kosovo is currently the only executive mission.
42 Afghanistan–Pakistan–Iran–Turkey–Balkan countries–West Europe. Intervention of Mr Bernard Frahi of the UNODC: ‘The Balkans and the UNODC, Actions and Perspectives of Cooperation in the Balkan Region – the Paris Pact’. Conference organized by the Andreas Papandreou Foundation, 31.03.06, ‘The Problem of Illegal Drugs in the Balkans and the Contribution of the Balkan Countries in the International Community in Addressing the Problem’. Available at www.iap.org (accessed 10 November 2008).
43 Interviews in Zagreb and Sarajevo, September 2006.
44 The European Security Strategy, 78367/03, 12 December 2003. The Action Plan for Civilian Aspects of ESDP, approved by the European Council on 17–18 June 2004, 10307/04. The Strategy for the External Dimension of JHA adopted by the Council on 6 December 2005, 15446/05.
45 Interview in Brussels, May 2008.