1. EUROJUST - An Overview Background, Structure and Work Regional Expert Workshop on International Co- operation on Counter Terrorism, Corruption and the fight against Transational Organised Crime 7 – 9 March 2005 Rajka Vlahovic

2. Provisional ‘Pro-Eurojust’ from 1 March 2001. Eurojust Decision – Eurojust’s constitutional and legal foundation.Eurojust Decision – Eurojust’s constitutional and legal foundation. – Agreed in December 2001 and published on 28 February 2002. – Agreed in December 2001 and published on 28 February 2002. – Definitive ‘Eurojust’ since May 2002. – Definitive ‘Eurojust’ since May 2002. Preparatory work:Preparatory work: – Rules of Procedure – Rules of Procedure – Appointment of Administrative Director – Appointment of Administrative Director – Budget 2002 & 2003 – Budget 2002 & 2003 – Move to The Hague December 2002 – Move to The Hague December 2002 A Short History

3. THE BUILDING FOR EUROJUST & INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

4. A group of 25 EU prosecutors / judgesA group of 25 EU prosecutors / judges –One nominated by each Member State Aim -Aim - –‘to deal more effectively with serious cross border crime, particularly when it is organised, and involves two or more Member States’ - JHA Council Decision of 14 December 2000 What is Eurojust ?

5. AustriaAustria BelgiumBelgium CyprusCyprus Czech RepublicCzech Republic DenmarkDenmark EstoniaEstonia FinlandFinland FranceFrance GermanyGermany GreeceGreece HungaryHungary IrelandIreland –Ulrike Haberl-Schwarz - Vice President –Michèle Coninsx –Katerina Loizou –Pavel Zeman –Johan Reimann –Raivo Sepp –Maarit Loimukoski –Francois Falleti –Hermann von Langsdorff –Stavroula Koutoulakou –Ilona Lévai –Jarlath Spellman Eurojust - Membership (1)

6. ItalyItaly LithuaniaLithuania LatviaLatvia LuxembourgLuxembourg MaltaMalta The NetherlandsThe Netherlands PolandPoland PortugalPortugal SlovakiaSlovakia SloveniaSlovenia SpainSpain SwedenSweden UKUK –Cesare Martellino –Rolandas Tilindis –Gunars Bundzis –Georges Heisbourg –Silvio Camilleri –Roelof-Jan Manschot – Vice President –Jerzy Iwanicki –Jose-Luis Lopes da Mota –Peter Paluda –Barbara Brezigar –Ruben Jimenez Fernandes –Solveig Wollstad –Mike Kennedy - President of the College Eurojust - Membership (2)

7. Why Eurojust? To improve action against cross border crime, Existing Mutual Legal Assistance & Extradition arrangements often lengthy and uncertain. Alternative to the European Prosecutor option.

8. Aims Improve co-operation between Competent Authorities in Member StatesImprove co-operation between Competent Authorities in Member States Bring better co-ordination of cross-border investigations and prosecutionsBring better co-ordination of cross-border investigations and prosecutions Exchange of informationExchange of information To make recommendations to change laws to improve MLA & Extradition arrangementsTo make recommendations to change laws to improve MLA & Extradition arrangements To build bridges between different legal systemsTo build bridges between different legal systems

9. Eurojust Provides Easy access to a range of MLA expertise.Easy access to a range of MLA expertise. Link to a network of operational investigators & prosecutors across Europe and beyond.Link to a network of operational investigators & prosecutors across Europe and beyond. A useful source of information on the EAW… blockages …JIT’s …certain types of crime etc.A useful source of information on the EAW… blockages …JIT’s …certain types of crime etc. Facilities to co-ordinate transnational cases.Facilities to co-ordinate transnational cases. –conference and meeting rooms –translators Possible exercise of powers.Possible exercise of powers.

10. Eurojust has Powers Power to make formal requests :Power to make formal requests : –By an individual Eurojust Member –OR –By the “College” (all 25 Eurojust members) What if Competent Authority of a Member State decide not to comply with a request from Eurojust?What if Competent Authority of a Member State decide not to comply with a request from Eurojust? No sanction but must give reasons ……..No sanction but must give reasons …….. “ …except if it will harm essential national security or jeopardise the success of current investigations or safety of individuals” Report on failures in Annual Report.Report on failures in Annual Report.

11. Eurojust’s Powers Power to request authorities in Member States :Power to request authorities in Member States : –to investigate or prosecute specific acts –to accept that one country is better placed to prosecute than another –to co-ordinate with one another –to set up a Joint Investigation Team –to provide Eurojust with any information necessary to carry out its tasks.

12. Domestic Competent Authorities Domestic Competent Authorities EJN (European Judicial Network) EJN (European Judicial Network) Europol Europol Liaison Magistrates Liaison Magistrates OLAF (Office pour la Lutte Anti-Fraude) OLAF (Office pour la Lutte Anti-Fraude) EU Candidate Countries EU Candidate Countries Other Countries Contact Points: Other Countries Contact Points: USA, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, etc. Key Partners

13. The work pattern of the Unit English is the working languageEnglish is the working language Plenary sessions – assembled together as a centralised unitPlenary sessions – assembled together as a centralised unit Dealing with case referrals – the “Tour de Table”Dealing with case referrals – the “Tour de Table” Committee workCommittee work Bi-lateral meetingsBi-lateral meetings Domestic work daysDomestic work days

14. Working at Different Levels Level 1Level 1 – Plenary Meeting of all 25 National Members – Twice each week Level 2Level 2 –Only those national members involved in a case Level 3Level 3 –Investigators & prosecutors dealing with a case

15. HI-TECH MEETING ROOMS AND TRANSLATION FACILITIES

16. Strategic Meetings A forum where experts and practitioners can meet and discuss :A forum where experts and practitioners can meet and discuss : –Terrorism –Trafficking in human beings –Trafficking in drugs –Money laundering –Fraud

17. The EAW Framework Decision gives Eurojust 2 specific tasks. Art.16 -- advice in cases of competing claims Art.17 – to be informed where time limits for execution are not met. Case referrals

18. Focus Focus on key, cross border criminal conduct. –Meetings [Casework & Strategic] –Co-ordination Role in EAW, JIT’s. Influencing the law makers. –Identifying blockages, recommendations to improve.

19. Terrorism - EU Council Initiatives  Council Common Position on combating terrorism - 27 December 2001  Council Common Position on application of specific measures to combat terrorism - 27 December 2001 - updated in common position 22 December 2003  Council Regulation – restrictive measures against certain persons & entities - 27 December 2001  Council Common position – restrictive measures against Osama bin Laden & Al-Qaeda - 27 May 2002  Council Framework Decision on combating terrorism - 13 June 2002

20. Terrorism - EU Council Initiatives 2 6. Council Decision on evaluation of national systems and implementation in fight against terrorism - 28 November 2002 7. Council Decision on implementation of measures for police and judicial co-operation - 19 December 2002 9. Council Framework Decision on execution in EU of orders freezing property & evidence - 22 July 2003 9. Common Position on combating terrorism - 22 December 2003 10. Council Declaration on combating terrorism - 25 March 2004

21. Eurojust  Operational Meetings - Al-Aqsa Charity fraud - EU Letter Bombs - Madrid bombing  Strategic Meetings on Terrorism Eurojust Annual Report 2003 - JHA Council 29 April 2004 - Eurojust report to JHA Council by end May  Team Terrorism  Scoreboard - Action Plan

22. Strategic Meeting Terrorism June 2004  Focus on Networking of National Correspondents and Leading Magistrates Terrorism  Guidelines related to Council Decision of December 19 2002: Terrorism Information Exchange  Overview of Relevant Terrorist Cases in EU  Bilateral & Multilateral Terrorism Coordination Meetings

23. TEAM TERRORISM GOAL: Establish a Centre of Expertise in Terrorism TASKS: Lead on terrorist casework for Eurojust. Organise meetings Update Eurojust Scoreboard

24.  Define a better approach to receipt and handling of terrorism info from open and closed sources  Emphasise requirements to be supplied with terrorist information from national terrorism correspondents  Maintaining contact with any working parties and meetings in Brussels covering these topics TEAM TERRORISM