Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) raised a series of questions on Thursday 14 January on the application and monitoring of the cooperation agreement between London and the EU in the field of internal security and judicial cooperation.
The cooperation foresees relatively close relations in several areas, including the exchange of air passenger data, Europol, the sharing of operational information and alerts on individuals, and extradition.
This agreement (see EUROPE 12632/12) will also have its own dispute settlement mechanism with specialised committees that can agree on an amicable solution. Cooperation may stop if one party no longer meets its obligations, for example, if the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights are no longer respected.
For Jeroen Lenaers (EPP, the Netherlands), this agreement is “undoubtedly the best possible” between the two partners, but it remains “a far cry from what we had”, and “we risk having surprises; we will have to prepare for all eventualities” when the cooperation applies.
The protection of personal data and the decision on adequacy to be taken by the Commission in this area continues to be a major concern for him—which was also much commented on by MEPs on Thursday morning.
For Sophie in ’t Veld (Renew Europe, the Netherlands), the safeguards provided for in the agreement “are worthless if they are not applied” and, here again, on personal data, she believes that the Commission has not done enough so far to ensure the proper application of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The Dutch woman also pointed out that the United Kingdom had not always been “very reliable”, recalling the illegal copies of data from the Schengen Information System. “The country was abusing its privileges, and the Commission had done nothing”, she said.
Greens/EFA MEP Terry Reintke (Germany) believes that the agreement is a “second-best” solution, but that there are questions about possible data breaches. Her French colleague Damien Carême, for his part, deplored the lack of provisions on asylum and migration.
Judicial cooperation
In the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Bruno Gencarelli, who heads the ‘International Data Flows and Protection’ unit of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice, defended what he considers to be a “comprehensive package”, covering cooperation with Eurojust, mutual assistance, surrender of criminals, exchange of information on criminal records, the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, and the freezing and confiscation of criminal assets.
As with Europol, the Commission’s objective was to enable, together with Eurojust, effective cooperation with the United Kingdom, while reflecting its status as a non-Member State, he explained. The agreement therefore provides for the same possibilities for Eurojust as for Europol, but these have yet to be specified in a working agreement between the two parties, which is currently being negotiated.
For the surrender of wanted persons, the agreement is largely inspired by the EU’s agreement with Iceland and Norway, but with additional safeguards and conditions, Mr Gencarelli said. In particular, it provides for the respect of the principle of proportionality, safeguards in case of concerns about detention conditions or grounds for non-execution of the request for surrender in case of risk of discrimination, for example.
On the subject of mutual assistance, the Commission’s main objective was to facilitate the use of the relevant Council of Europe instruments on which this type of cooperation relies, particularly the 1959 Convention and its protocol and to supplement those instruments where necessary to ensure a more effective form of cooperation.
To the Chairman of the LIBE Committee, Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D, Spain), who asked him if all these elements were included in the agreement or if they were just broad principles, Mr Gencarelli confirmed that everything was written “in black and white” in the agreement, with the exception of the technical modalities of cooperation with Eurojust and Europol, which still need to be developed further. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic and Marion Fontana)