EUROPOL: Update on the draft Convention
01 September 1994
The draft Europol Convention has undergone a number of changes since our report in Statewatch vol 4 no 3 and there are still significant differences between the Members States of the EU to be resolved. The German Presidency intended the Convention to be ready for signing at the Council of Justice and Interior Ministers on 30 November, indeed this was stated as their primary objective under the "third pillar" over a year ago. However, unless there is a major change of policy by the UK and France over the role of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Auditors agreement will not be reached in time for this meeting.
Points of difference
At the Informal Meeting of Justice and Interior Ministers in Berlin on 7 September a revised draft of the Europol Convention was discussed (dated 28 June 1994; this updated the 8 November 1993 and the May 1994 versions). The first area of disagreement is over national access to the computerised Europol database. The planned system architecture has three elements: a) an information system with standardised data, contributed by national criminal intelligence centres; b) an index system of key words to the analysis data files; c) the analysis data files which will also include data in a "non-standardised form" that is "intelligence" or "speculation" about an individual, where "sensitive" data can be entered. The current proposal is that national liaison officers will only have access to the standardised data each of them has contributed and not to any of the "sensitive" data. France, supported by Italy and Spain, want all the information held by Europol to be accessible at national level.
The Objectives set out in the June 1994 draft Convention include "terrorism" in addition to drug trafficking and serious (organised) crime (Article 2.1). Spain insists this should be included while the UK's long-standing official position is that the current structure for combatting terrorism works perfectly well. Unofficially the UK government likes the present system - the only bit of the old Trevi system to survive - because it created it, with the European Liaison Unit of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch coordinating intelligence with other EU Special Branches and internal security agencies. The UK also does not want to entrust anti-terrorism to "untrustworthy" police officers from certain EU states. A "compromise" on this issue is in sight with the inclusion of a general remit to cover terrorism included in Europol's objectives but with the assign of specific forms of terrorism at a future date (eg: nuclear thefts).
The three other issues which divide the EU states may not be so easily resolved. A new Article 31 which says: "An examination is needed as to whether it is necessary to provide, in the Convention, provisions ruling parliamentary control of Europol activities...". Under consideration is either strengthened control by the European Parliament, a mixed commission of the EP and national parliaments, or a joint commission just composed of members of national parliaments. Any of the these options would run counter to the inter-governmental nature of the Convention and thus run into implacable opposition from the UK among others. The same goes for the proposed roles of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Auditors. The majority favour using both of these bodies partly for reasons of efficiency (they work and have long track-records) and partly to link Europol into the main institutions of the European Union. A minority, including the UK and France, again want to preserve the "intergovernmental" nature of this Convention (and the others in the pipeline, the Customs Cooperation Convention, European Information System and the External Borders Convention).
The key issue is the role of the European Court of Justice. The current draft Convention would allow the court to have jurisdiction over: a) differences of opinion between member states or