INTERNATIONAL ORGANISED CRIME AND EUROPEAN POLICE CO-OPERATION
Interview with Professor Lode van Outrive, MEP, Catholic University of LeuvenFECL : The report by the Ad Hoc Group on International Organised Crime (AHIOC) confirms that the new structures of European police co-operation, Europol, EIS, and CIS are already being set up despite the fact that a common legal basis for such a co-operation does not yet exist. How about the democratic legitimacy of such a proceeding?
LvO : With regard to the EIS, it is not really correct to say that it is already being set up. This is however rather due to technical and administrative problems than to scruples about the legitimacy of the proceeding. The setting up of the EIS is somewhat blocked for the time being, because the SIS (Schengen Information System) is not yet fully operational. This is however seen as a precondition for establishing the EIS. By the way, the SIS too, for the time being, lacks a legal basis, as the Schengen Agreement has not yet been ratified by all signatory states.
With regard to Europol, your observation is correct: There is no convention yet, but one has already begun working on the sole basis of a purely technical-administrative agreement. To start police co-operation in this way, is a very objectionable proceeding indeed, in particular, when one considers that we don't no anything about which stage the work on the first element of Europol, the EDU (European Drug Unit), has reached. It seems that the EDU is already more or less operational, but it is not known yet, where the central computer will be placed, because Ministers failed to reach agreement on the question of the seat of Europol's headquarters. Now, there is also some talk about a project for a particular Europol Convention which is necessary in view of the planned exchange of personal data.
In my opinion, they have taken a wrong start. There is no control and the ministers simply tell us that they will assure control themselves.
Regarding Europol's relations with Interpol and the numerous other bodies and initiatives involved in the combat against narcotics, nothing is regulated in an orderly manner, as far as I know, at least. If such arrangements have been made, they have been kept completely secret.
FECL : The AHIOC calls for the setting up of a scientific documentation on international organised crime based on common research. It further recommends that the results of this research should be more accessible both to "decisionmakers" and "practitioners". Is this an indication that non-governmental institutions and groups, as for instance academic researchers, lawyers and human right groups might finally be granted better access to information concerning the development of police and justice co-operation?
LvO : I would be happy to believe this, but I am very doubtful. So far, such an access to information has been denied in this domain and the recommendations you mentioned are all too vague.
FECL : The AHIOC recommends that all domains regarding home affairs and justice be placed under the common co-ordination of the new K.4 Committee.
Is the K.4 Committee going to take the place of TREVI?
LvO : No, K.4 is not identical with TREVI. TREVI will pursue its work. The K.4 Committee is to replace the so-called Group of Co-ordinators on the free movement of persons. This last fairly informal group was created as a result of the Rhodos Council of European Top-Ministers and the first Palma conference of co-ordinators (top level civil servants). With the formal creation of the K.4 Committee, the Group of Co-ordinators will simply obtain a more official status within the framework of the Maastricht Treaty on Union. One of the tasks of the K.4 Committee will be to co-ordinate the various TREVI-working groups as well as the activities within the Ad hoc Group Immigration. As for the AHIOC, this is a separate body created by the European Council.
FECL : The report of the AHIOC calls for the setting up of points of contact for police co-operation in each EC-member states. At the recent conference of Interpol's European section in Berne, the Swiss delegation suggested that the existing National Co-ordination Bureaux of Interpol would be best suited for such a function (see FECL No.15, p.1). Is such a rapprochement between Europol and Interpol likely to take place?
LvO : I very much doubt it. According to my sources, the EC police network is interested in making full use of Interpol information, but has no intention to grant Interpol access to its own information.
It is true that Interpol, and in particular its European section, are trying to exert strong pressure in order not to be excluded from the developing EC-network of police co-operation. But I understand, there is a lot of opposition against Interpol's desires. In the view of EC-decisionmakers, Interpol is to benefit Europol, but not vice versa. In the technical-administrative agreement on Europol it otherwise clearly says that Europol is prohibited from communicating with other international systems.
FECL : The AHIOC obviously has a hard time in trying to establish a common criminological, let alone legal definition of organised crime. Is it not quite questionable to set up common police structures of combat against a non-defined form of crime?
LvO : In my opinion, just as one has never been able to agree on a definition of terrorism, one will never find an acceptable definition of what is organised crime and what is not. The term will always be interpreted according to the ad hoc priorities of the instances and interests one wishes to promote. The definition of international organised crime will always be a political issue.
The Belgian Gendarmerie, for instance says there is a criminal organisation, as soon as two persons do something punishable together. In other countries they say, that a criminal organisation presupposes the presence of criteria such as organisational structures, a hierarchy, the determination to commit violent crimes, etc.
The term is all too elastic, indeed. Take the report of the AHIOC, for instance. It names illegal immigration as a domain relevant of international organised crime - just one example among others showing that it is political priorities of the moment which dictate "ad hoc" definitions.
In my view, a common and precise legal definition of a crime could be a precondition for combatting it. This is true for international organised crime too. But such a definition will always be the result of policial decision-making - hidden or not.