Eurojust : Annual Report 2005

FOREWORD

I am pleased to present the fourth Eurojust Annual Report. The report is for the calendar year 2005 and is prepared in accordance with Article 32(1) of the Eurojust Decision which requires the President, on behalf of the College, «to report to the Council in writing every year on the activities and management, including budgetary management of Eurojust.»

In the Annual Report for 2004 I suggested that Eurojust had completed the first phase of its establishment. December 2005 saw the third anniversary of Eurojust’s presence in The Hague. I can say with confidence that Eurojust has now made a series of advances which will lead to it becoming firmly established as a respected organisation assisting the national investigating and prosecuting authorities. These advances relate internally to the development of our infrastructure and continually increasing caseload, and externally to the strengthening of relationships with European Union organisations and the completion of formal co-operation agreements with three non-EU states.

It is especially pleasing to confirm that our core business, our caseload, is continuing to grow rapidly. In 2005 the number of cases referred to the College rose by more than 54% over the figure for 2004. This was a very significant increase. I feel the growth in cases reflects the increased confidence which the national investigating and prosecuting authorities have in Eurojust’s capacity to add value to their work and an increased willingness in the EU states to engage with Eurojust and with each other to tackle cross-border crime. The increase in 2005 continues the very positive trend which saw a 27% increase in 2004 over the cases referred in 2003 and a 50% increase in 2003 over 2002.

The proportion of bilateral cases, i.e., cases involving two countries, increased during 2005 but it would be misleading to suggest that these cases are straightforward. Frequently bilateral cases are complex and it is common for additional countries to be added to the investigations or prosecutions. We were also pleased to note that an increasing number of serious cases were referred to us, continuing another positive trend from earlier years. The number of meetings to facilitate co-operation and co-ordinate action in specific cases increased from 52 in 2004 to 73 in 2005. I feel this increase, rather than an unsophisticated comparison of the numbers of bilateral and multilateral cases, is a more accurate reflection of the complexity of the caseload handled by Eurojust. A more detailed analysis of these case referrals and the strategic meetings is contained in the casework section of this report together with examples of cases for which Eurojust has provided assistance.

The increase in case referrals is undoubtedly due to the strong links and the trust and confidence which have developed between Eurojust and the national investigating and prosecution authorities in the past three years. However the ten National Members whose states joined the European Union in May of 2004 have now become fully established in our Unit. Their work has also contributed significantly to the efficiency of Eurojust and the number of case referrals. Importantly more cases were referred to Eurojust for assistance at an early stage of international investigations. When this happens Eurojust can save resources and add real value for those fighting international crime. We are pleased but still not satisfied with these increases and improvements.

I have said in previous Annual Reports and I remain convinced that, notwithstanding the increased number of case referrals, there are more cases which should be referred to Eurojust. The College still does not feel that Eurojust’s capacity to deal with casework is being fully exploited. However many National Members work alone, without a Deputy or an Assistant to support them. Several National Members have a very heavy workload both of cases in which they are assisting their own national authorities and where they are helping authorities in other Member States with cases linked to their own state. As Eurojust develops and its caseload increases it is becoming clear that some National Members, working alone, do not have the capacity and cannot provide a full casework service to their own domestic authorities, to other members of the College in their casework and also play their principal part as members of the College acting as the management board. I would urge Ministers of Justice and Internal Affairs, Prosecutors General or their equivalents to review the needs of their own National Member and to assess whether he or she requires support by a Deputy or a Seconded National Expert.

In addition to the increased number of co-ordination meetings on specific cases which we hosted in 2005 we continued to hold regular strategic meetings on significant types of serious organised crime investigations and prosecutions. The topics covered to date have included terrorist activity, the trafficking of human beings, drug trafficking issues, relations with Liaison Magistrates, counterfeiting, and money laundering and asset restraint and confiscation. The dreadful terrorist incidents in July in London ensured that terrorism remains a top priority for Eurojust. We held a number of successful meetings for terrorism investigators and prosecutors from the EU Member States in The Hague and elsewhere during 2005. A notable feature of this work is that we are linking more regularly with terrorism investigators and prosecutors from non-EU states and we anticipate that this trend will continue in the months and years ahead. In at least one multinational meeting we facilitated, contributions resulted in a potential terrorist attack being thwarted.

In addition to these strategic meetings we held our annual seminar for practitioners on 17 and 18 May in Budapest to continue the work on practical problems related to the functioning of the European Arrest Warrant and follow up the initial strategic meeting held in October 2004. We have continued to develop our links with other EU bodies. Our relationship with Europol and its new Director continues to strengthen. However there are some improvements which could be made to the structure of Europol’s decision-making process which we feel would undoubtedly allow our co-operation to be more fruitful. Although there are still many potential opportunities to be exploited, our relationship with OLAF improved considerably during in 2005. We have mentioned in the last two Annual Reports that some Member States have not yet changed their legislation to implement the Eurojust Decision. Sadly Cyprus, Spain and Greece still have not implemented the Eurojust Decision in their legislation. The deadline was September 2003. We hope that implementation will take place in 2006.

Data protection linked to effective case management remains a high priority. Our Case Management System (CMS) is now fully operational. During the year we completed the installation of our crucially important secure network for internal communication. We also completed work on the E-POC II Project for a feasibility study for potential solutions to allow secure communication with our national competent authorities and other partners so that National Members can electronically transmit and receive sensitive information by secure means. The early and effective implementation of this system will be a key factor in Eurojust’s future success. We hope approval will be given to take this work forward in 2006 as the E-POC III Project and so build on the earlier work.

Our relations with non-EU states have developed considerably during 2005. On 28 April 2005 Eurojust completed its first formal co-operation arrangements with a non-EU state when the agreement with Norway was signed in Oslo. We are very pleased that, under the terms of the agreement, the Norwegian Prosecution Service appointed Knut Kallerud as a Norwegian Liaison Prosecutor based at Eurojust. On 2 December 2005 two additional formal co-operation agreements were signed, with Romania and with Iceland. We are sure these agreements will build on the excellent informal relationships we have enjoyed with both countries, and especially with Romania. We see the signature of the Romanian agreement as a natural step towards their accession to the EU. In 2005 we began formal negotiations for an agreement with the United States of America and with Switzerland. We have also held informal discussions with the Russian Federation and Ukraine and we expect further positive developments in the next twelve months.

Eurojust’s infrastructure has continued to develop. By the end of December 2005 the organisation had grown to 25 National Members and their Assistants supported by the Administrative Director and 70 administrative staff. I feel we have made good progress but there is more that can be done. We will continue to develop our infrastructure and our capacity to assist national investigators and prosecutors in order to build our profile within the EU and also externally to develop our capacity to act as a gateway for investigators and prosecutors from outside the EU. We are particularly keen to enhance our ability to provide legal advice and support for practitioners, including good practice guidance, on all the legal aspects of investigations and prosecutions of serious organised cross-border crime. We are also anxious to continue our input into the proposals by the European Commission and others for more effective laws, procedures and processes in the EU area of freedom, security and justice.

In December 2005 we made long-awaited and important progress with the Dutch authorities to confirm and consolidate our position and status in The Hague. We concluded lengthy negotiations with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the terms of our Seat Agreement and separately with the Dutch Government Property Agency (Rijksgebouwendienst) to secure a Lease Agreement until 2012 for our premises in The Hague.

My three-year term as President of the College, which passed quickly, came to an end in the middle of the year. It proved to be a very challenging and enjoyable period and so I decided to offer myself as a candidate for a second term. I was greatly honoured and delighted that my colleagues re-elected me for a second term.

During 2005 three National Members left Eurojust. We were very sorry to bid farewell to Barbara Brezigar, Stavroula Koutoulakou and Jerzy Iwanicki, respectively the National Members for Slovenia, Greece and Poland. I would like to thank them all for the significant contributions they made to the development and enlargement of Eurojust. Stavroula returned to duties as a senior public prosecutor in Athens. Jerzy has returned to work in the Polish Ministry of Justice where we hope full use will be made of the experience he gained at Eurojust. We were delighted that Barbara was appointed the Prosecutor General of Slovenia. We wish them every success in their new roles. We welcomed their replacements into the College: Malči Gabrijelčič from Slovenia, Lampros Patsavellas from Greece and Mariusz Skowroński from Poland.

In 2005 Donatella Frendo Dimech was promoted from Deputy National Member to National Member for Malta, ensuring that Malta was represented regularly at meetings of the College. I should be grateful if this report could be circulated to all investigators and prosecutors who have responsibility for, or an interest in, the fight against serious organised cross-border crime.

MICHAEL G KENNEDY

January 2006

Download at PDF format

Eurojust : Annual Report 2005