Jaarverslag EDU over 1995
aan stuurgroep II, 15 maart 1996
<<5647/96 LIMITE EUROPOL 19>>
EDU blijkt toch al veel meer te doen dan we denken. Coördinatie, drugs doorvoeren – en Nederland staat hoog op de lijst van informatie-aanvragen…

Jaarverslag EDU over 1996
aan Comité K4, 19 maart 1997
<<6711/97 LIMITE EUROPOL 14>>
Hoe werd de uitbreiding richting illegale immigratienetwerken opgepikt, en hoe staat het met het LOGO project?

EDU werkprogramma 1997
aan Coreper/de Raad, 5 november 1996
<<11085/1/96 REV 1 LIMITE EUROPOL>>
Wat staat er dit jaar op de rails? De voorbereidingen voor de periode na de ratificatie lopen gestaag door.

Europol-drugseenheid – werkprogamma 1998
aan K4 Comité, 8 mei 1996
<<6937/1/96 REV LIMITE EUROPOL 27>>
Van EDU naar Europol, maar wat kost zo’n dienst nu eigenlijk?

limite – 06711.EN7

Report on the Activities of the EUROPOLDRUGS UNIT in 1996-Summary

1. General remarks

1996 was the third year of the existence of the Europol DrugsUnit (EDU) and there were a number of very significantdevelopments politically.

Agreement was reached at the Florence Summit on the role of theEuropean Court of Justice concerning Europol. Member States arenow conducting their ratification procedures. The United Kingdomwas the first country to ratify the Convention on the 1Oth ofDecember 1996.

lees meer

Het Europol Computer syteem
aan Comité K4, 30 oktober 1996
<<11084/96 LIMITE EUROPOL 57>>
Registratie en uitwisseling van gegevens wordt zeer belangrijk bij Europol. Hoe gaat dat nu eigenlijk werken?

Ontwerp reglement voor de analysebestanden
aan Comité K4, 21 februari 1997
<<6100/97 LIMITE EUROPOL 10>>
Wie dacht dat Europol echt alleen maar gegevens ging uitwisselen moet hier maar eens een kijkje nemen. Onderzoeksgerichte analyse en operationele ondersteuning van opsporingsteams, dat klinkt behoorlijk actief.

Today, Tony Bunyan, the Editor of Statewatch bulletin, lodged five complaints with the European Ombudsman on the European Council’s refusal to give access to documents.

The complaints charge the Council with a series of decisions which constitute maladministration including misapplying the Council decision on public access to documents, refusing to supply information, and abuse of power.

John Carvel, of the Guardian newspaper, who won a case in the European Court of Justice against the Council over access to documents in 1995 said:

The Ombudsman will be appalled at the way the Council has broken its own rules in a paranoid attempt to maintain official secrecy. Mr Bunyan has been treated disgracefully.

lees meer

“Statewatch applications split the European Council”

Three appeals made by Statewatch editor Tony Bunyan made against the refusal to release documents concerning the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers has produced major divisions in the European Council over the issue of secrecy. The first case, reported in Statewatch vol 6 no 2, March-April 1996, saw three governments – Denmark, Sweden and Finland – making public Declarations in support of greater openness and two governments voting against the proposed reply – Denmark and the UK. The second, reported below, similarly saw Denmark and Sweden again calling for more documents to be released. Four countries voted against the proposed response by the Council to an appeal – Denmark, Sweden, France and Portugal. The French vote against the proposed response cannot be taken as one of support for openness in the light of its later attack on … but rather that too many documents were being released. The third case on the Minutes of the K4 Committee, reported on page 1 and below, saw seven countries lining up in favour of greater openness and against a obviously absurd interpretation of the rules of access to documents.

lees meer