Brussels, 17/01/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 17 January, the European Parliament adopted the consultative report by Agustin Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (EPP-ED, Spain) which reflected Parliament's desire ultimately to have more power over the future Community agency Europol, the change of status of which is still under discussion in the Council. In adopting the report (by 502 votes to 46, with 41 abstentions), MEPs clearly stated their desire to see the Council decision to be made as quickly as possible under Slovenian Presidency. They also wanted to see a system of very strict data protection. Also adopted, by 537 votes to 31, with 37 abstentions, was an important amendment put forward by the EPP-EE, PES, ALDE and Greens/EFA groups recommending that the present decision should be review within six months of the coming into effect of the treaty signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007.
The draft decision (by unanimity, co-decision) reached in December 2006 (see EUROPE 9332) seeks to replace the 1995 Europol Convention with a Council decision which would de facto bring the European Police Office under Community (Community budget, status of staff, etc.). It also extends the Europol mandate to all serious cross-border crime. At the European Council in December of last year, heads of state and government stated that Europol had to be made to work better, calling, therefore, on the Council to reach agreement on the decision before the end of June 2008 at the latest. At the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in November 2007, the stumbling blocks for ministers were once again the issue of immunity for Europol officers with joint investigating teams, police quotas within Europol and the principle of budgetary neutrality. At the end of November, at an informal meeting between the Slovenian delegation and the competent Parliamentary committee, the Slovenians reiterated their commitment to reaching a political agreement at the JHA Council in June. Were such an agreement to be reached at that time, the decision would come into effect on 1 January 2010.
Improved democratic scrutiny. MEPs noted that granting Europol the status of an EU agency, funded from the EU's general budget, would enhance Parliamentary scrutiny and democratic scrutiny of the organisation, through its role as a budgetary authority. They considered that the head of the governing board, the director and deputy directors of Europol should have to appear before Parliament when requested to do so (power of appointment and revocation). In order to ensure democratic debate with civil society and better scrutiny of Europol activities, MEPs wanted the director of Europol to present the Europol priorities for the year to come to a joint committee made up of MEPs and MPs from national parliaments.
Better data protection. MEPs believed that new rules setting arrangements for cooperation between Europol and third countries and external organisations should be adopted by the Council after consulting Parliament. They noted that Europol should comply with the 1995 directive on data protection when gathering, storing, handling, analysing and exchanging information sent by member states or third countries or other public or private bodies. Europol should not have access to information from private entities except on a case-by-case basis, for specific purposes and under the legal control of member states. The use of certain categories of data (racial or ethnic origin, political opinions) should only be authorised where absolutely necessary and proportionate. They also believed that retention of the information contained in the files should be assessed every two years. Finally, MEPs said it was essential that the Council adopt the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar as quickly as possible.
During the debate on the text, held the previous day, Slovenian Secretary of State for European Affairs Janez Lenarcic said that the presidency would take account of MEPs' position, particularly with regard to the security of personal data and democratic scrutiny. He said that the presidency would do its best to find solutions to the issues which were continuing to cause deadlock. He preferred to leave it to declaration no 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which provides for the Commission's being able, case-by-case, to propose the review of the 3rd pillar instruments in order to create a co-decision mechanism. Commissioner Franco Frattini was also very much in favour of this compromise solution, saying that it was not worth considering a review of the text when it had not yet come into force. “We are not closing the door, but an automatic review would pose problems” he said (B.C.)