Brussels, 10/09/2002 (Agence Europe) - The meeting of the Fifteen, on Saturday in Copenhagen, with Attorney General Ashcroft is aimed at taking stock of all actions undertaken against terrorism since 11 September 2001, and will not be a meeting for negotiating the future EU-US agreement on judicial cooperation and extradition, it is explained by the Danish Presidency, the United States and the European Commission. European Justice and Home Affairs Ministers invited their US counterpart to attend their informal meeting for the very first time. "We must above all take stock of what we have accomplished since 11 September", explained European Commissioner Antonio Vitorino speaking to several journalists on the fringe of the conference on Tuesday. The United States believes "this unprecedented meeting in itself shows we have moved on to a new stage in cooperation", explained one American official. Delighted to accept the Danish invitation, the United States plans to speak of how cooperation against terrorism may be developed at the level of the European Union. The meeting will, says the Presidency, allow them, together, to reach an agreement on political guidelines and to strengthen and intensify EU/US cooperation against terrorism.
"It is not a negotiation meeting", each of the participants explained at Saturday's meeting. Negotiations for an agreement on judicial co-operation and extradition between the European Union and the United States was launched at the end of the Spanish Presidency, after the Fifteen had approved, on 26 April, the negotiating brief that they then entrusted to the Presidency, assisted by the Commission.
There were two negotiations sessions, one in July the other on 4-6 September. "Negotiations are progressing well, nothing has so far been concluded but we hope to have finished the first exchange of views on the whole range of subjects at the end of September", indicated a Danish diplomat. Commissioner Vitorino described the real negation as not having yet begun and that they were still identifying points for discussion. A new negotiation session had been planned for 23-25 September, followed by two more at the end of October and mid-November. The themes that will be dealt with in the course of the first discussions were (at the request of the EU) better access to bank accounts and joint investigation teams and (at the request of the USA) extradition of their nationals and a reduction in the list of exceptions for crimes considered as political. The two parties also discussed the confiscation of the proceeds from crime and the temporary remission for the accused. The Presidency hopes to make substantial progress by the end of the year but both sides have refused to provide an exact objective for the conclusion of negotiations. The two parties strongly reject the objections brought by Statewatch and a section of the British press of having carried out negotiations that went against democratic and parliamentary control (EUROPE 4 September p 2). European sources declared that there was no particular secret but, "we can't unveil the details of diplomatic negotiations". "The mandate has been approved by Member State governments and the agreement, if and when it is concluded, will be subject to parliamentary control", added these same diplomatic sources. US sources said that they approved of negations being carried out in public.
The United States has insisted since the beginning on speeding up extradition procedures and is demanding the extradition of nationals, the main value added (in their view) of an EU-US agreement on top of the bilateral agreements between the US and Member States. It will be difficult to meet this demand - most of the fifteen Member States are hostile with four countries (Greece, Portugal, Germany and Austria) saying that their Constitution prevents them from doing so. Only four countries (the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany) authorise it according to different criteria (including temporary release during the trial). The US is also calling for political offences to be removed from the exceptions and storing internet data. On the EU side, the stress has always been placed on guarantees for human rights, the death penalty and real life sentences, joint teams, data protection and direct liaison between legal authorities. Simplifying procedures is a common concern. The negotiating mandate approved by the EU notes that no extraditions will be authorised (or even legal assistance of any sort) if the accused risks capital punishment (Europe of 27 April, p.10). Note that this is the first legal cooperation agreement to be negotiated between the European Union and a non-EU Member State.
EU-US legal cooperation since S-11 is not restricted to negotiations over this agreement. At the extraordinary European Council following the 11 September attacks, the EU approved an action plan against terrorism in which it says it is prepared to greatly step up cooperation with Washington (see Europe of 22 September). The EU asked the US to give explain its expectations (see Europe of 29 September), which it did some weeks later (see Europe of 26 October). While the desire to strengthen cooperation and speed up procedures was common to both sides, they did not necessarily have the same priorities (see Europe of 31 October). The first cooperation agreement (on strategic cooperation) was signed between Europol and the United States in December 2001 and a much more sensitive agreement on data exchange is currently on the negotiating table (the Presidency hopes it will be signed by the end of the year). Moreover, Europol recently opened a liaison office in Washington. Liaison officers have been exchanged between the US and Eurojust, the European office for cooperation between judges. The European Union also approved the European arrest warrant, a common definition of terrorism, an updated blacklist of terrorists and terrorist organisations and the freezing of terrorist organisations' assets (see Europe of 12 September, p.12 and yesterday, p.13 for more information about the JHA Council).