Veria, 28/03/2003 (Agence Europe) - Greek Justice Minister Philippos Petsalnikos is willing to discuss with the United States on the points of the draft judicial cooperation and extradition agreement that pose a problem for France. He made the announcement on Friday when speaking to a few journalists at the opening of the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council in Veria (Greece). "I intend to organise a meeting with the United States on this point", he said. He also recognised that, although the Greek Presidency has not included this point on the agenda, it will be discussed among the "justice" points on Saturday. "If all goes well", ministers will give their go-ahead for signature by the May Council.
French diplomatic sources confirm that the French Justice Minister, Dominique Perben, intends to raise the issue and to explain to his counterparts how discussions in France are progressing. "The debate is under way before the two French assemblies, but it will not be easy", one French diplomat states. France explains that its reticence is based on two questions. First of all: Can the Union as such make an agreement with a country in the circumstances foreseen? Council sources assure that this does not pose a problem. The main reticence in fact relates to the relationship between the future agreement on extradition and the European arrest warrant. In the current state of things, "the same preferential treatment would be granted to the United States and to Member States", French diplomats say. It is on this point that France had voiced opposition to the declaration by the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 27 and 28 February whereby negotiations have been concluded (EUROPE of 1 March, p.9). Negotiations had been "suspended". The system for extradition under the European arrest warrant (which takes effect by the end of the year) does not in fact give prime importance to the requests of Member States over those of third countries, but France fears that the agreement with the United States will one day prevent a decision to decide such pre-eminence without the agreement of the United States. Other Member States had also raised this question, but without making it a blocking point. Experts reject the French argument. They stress that the agreement with the United States may be reviewed or denounced, and, recalling that the draft agreement stipulates that priority will be granted on a case by case basis, they consider a decision on European pre-eminence of principle will not be taken in the immediate future.
During a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights last week, several MEPs expressed concern about the content of the agreements. British Liberal Sarah Ludford had criticised the Council and the Commission for not having obtained sufficient guarantees on human rights and for not having consulted the Parliament. Elena Paciotti (Democratici di sinistra) requested that, before all else, the fate of the European detainees at the base in Guantanamo should be settled. On this occasion, Mr Petsalnikos and Mr Vitorino had given their assurance that the EU/US draft agreements would give greater guarantees than most of the existing bilateral agreements, mainly with regards the death penalty.
Negotiations began early summer 2002. The principle of such agreements had been agreed further to the events of 11 September.