Brussels, 09/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - The Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the Fifteen are to meet in Council again on 16 November to try to make the justice chapter of the anti-terrorist package move forward. The Council, devoted almost exclusively to the European arrest warrant and to incrimination of terrorism, will thus allow a first discussion to be held on the implementation of the Tampere programme. No decision is expected but the Belgian Permanent Representative, Frans van Daele, said he hoped there would be progress on specific points, mainly on the scope of the European arrest warrant, which is the main issue. Opinions still differ considerably and Council experts early in the week then the Permanent Representatives on Wednesday will prepare the ground for ministerial discussions. The Presidency is "reasonably optimistic" about the chances of reaching an agreement on 6 and 7 December on the European arrest warrant and incrimination of terrorism, said Mr Van Daele (but some, less optimistic Member States already envisage an extraordinary JHA Council held in parallel to the European Council of Laeken. "It will all depend on the pressure that foreign ministers put on their justice counterparts to reach rapid results", diplomatic sources note. The Council will examine:
The implementation of Tampere conclusions on the creation of a European area of freedom, justice and security, on the base of reports from the Commission and the Presidency (see following article).
The European arrest warrant: Discussions remain difficult but the Fifteen are moving towards the adoption of a detailed list of infringements for which the European arrest warrant would replace extradition, a list that has still to be defined. The Presidency submitted a proposal of compromise comprising a list that goes from terrorism to money laundering and including the organised theft of cars. In addition to this list, the Presidency would propose applying the European arrest warrant to crimes to which extradition applies (condemnation to at least four months in prison, or a decision of preventive detainment for an offence entailing at least one year in prison). Dual incrimination would be kept, it is specified by European sources. Our proposal "does not yet have everyone's acceptance, some finding it goes too far and others not far enough", said the Presidency. Discussions also cover the fact of knowing whether the mandate only covers offences which have a harmonised definition at European level, or whether it would be based on mutual recognition of decisions relating to certain types of infringements.
Incrimination of terrorism: Work by experts has made good headway, according to the Presidency, that is to propose a compromise for the definition of terrorist intent in order to reconcile the majority of countries that hoped to adopt the definition of the United Nations (i.e. acts intended to intimidate a population or to constrain a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing something) and some countries, mainly Nordic, that wish to ensure anti-globalisation groups are not concerned by this definition. Regarding sanctions, the discussions are still founded on the compromise presented to the JHA Council on 16 October, namely that each Member State should fix a maximum penalty of 20 years for the leader of a terrorist group and at least 8 years for the other infringements in relation to the terrorist group. For the other infringements linked to terrorism (instigation, complicity, attacks), the sanctions would be determined by each country, but should be stronger than for one and the same act committed without terrorist intent. Austria and Germany have difficulties with the principle of the minimum maximum penalty, Mr Van Daele recognised. He said they ask whether there are other ways to harmonise penalties. The Presidency is working on this and will make a report on Friday on the question of harmonisation in criminal affairs, without limiting it to terrorism, said the Ambassador. He felt one could, for example, reflect on only harmonising crimes that are the subject of extradition, or comparing effective prison sentences.