ANNEX IV

RESPONSE BY THE SWEDISH DELEGATION

Further to the meeting of the Europol working group on 6th December 1999. Please find enclosed the Swedish comments on document EUROPOL 48. It must however be emphasised that the comments are based on a preliminary analysis.

Recital 43 of the Tampere Conclusions concerning joint investigative teams

The JAI-Council confirmed consensus on the provisions concerning the possibility to set up joint investigation teams in the draft Convention on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union, on its meeting on the 2nd December 1999. These provisions should constitute the basis of the work in the Europol working group. The definitions used in the scenario for Joint Teams in document EUROPOL 48 and in the future work in the Europol working group should consequently be brought into line with the provisions of the draft Convention.

The functions set out for Europol in article 30.2 the Treaty on European Union (TEU) fall within the framework of tasks according to the Europol Convention. This indicates that the application of the article would not require any amendment to the Convention.

The purpose of the article is not to approximate the laws and regulations of the Member States, but rather to strengthen the role of Europol and make its tasks clearer. This points towards a Council decision according to article 34.2.c TEU rather than a framework decision according to article 34.2.b TEU. Such a decision should enable Europol to work in compliance with article 30.2 TEU.

Recital 44 concerning a European Police Chiefs operational Task Force

The Task Force shall, according to the Tampere Conclusions, engage itself in current trends in crime. Its fields of action must not be limited by the Europol mandate. The Task Force should therefore not operate in the framework of Europol. The Swedish position is furthermore that the Task Force should not form a part of the institutional framework of the Council, but could be arranged as a seminar held on regular basis.

It should also be analysed if the functions and composition of the Task Force and the Heads of national units (HENU) group are inconsistent or compatible with each other. Due to the result of the analysis it should be determined whether the members of the HENU group could form a Task Force to meet the demands of the European Council.

Recital 45 concerning receiving operational data and Europol´s possibility to ask Member States to start investigations

In this conclusion it is established and emphasized that it is vital that Europol really is provided with operational data from the Member States. It is crucial that the cooperation between Europol and the Member States is founded on mutual confidence. When this is the case there will in practice not be a need for Europol to rely on imperative provisions when asking Member States to start investigations. There is consequently no need for special provisions in the Europol Convention.

Recital 46 concerning Eurojust

Eurojust will be discussed in different fora under the Council in the near future, among others at the informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs ministers in March. The outcome of those discussions will indicate a more detailed model for Eurojust. The Swedish attitude concerning the shaping of the Eurojust unit is that an amendment to the Europol Convention hopefully can be avoided.

Recitals 51 and 56 concerning money laundering

Sweden supports the idea to extend the Europol mandate to money laundering in general. This extension of the competence will most likely entail analysis of operational data in relation to e.g. tracing, freezing, seizure and confiscation of proceeds of crime.

~~~~~

Source of this document: SEMDOC database

Statewatch European Monitoring and Documentation Centre

e-mail: office@statewatch.org