null
VZCZCXRO0432
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHBS #0536/01 0471155
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 161155Z FEB 07 ZDK ZDK ZDK
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEAHLC/DHS WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DOJ WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USEU BRUSSELS 000536 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CVIS PREL KCRM RS EUN
SUBJECT: EU AGREES ON ACCESS TO POLICE DATABASES FOR 
BETTER CRIME CONTROL 
 
REF:  2006 Brussels 04068 
 
BRUSSELS 00000536  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  EU ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA 
Council) on February 15 agreed to incorporate into 
the EU legal order the main provisions of the Treaty 
of Pr|m relating to police and judicial cooperation 
in criminal matters (issues coming under the so- 
called "third pillar") with the exception of the 
cross-border police intervention in case of an 
imminent danger.  The Council agreed on legislation 
that will commit member states to accept the 
transfer of sentenced persons to the prisoner's home 
country in order to improve the chances of 
reintegration into society.  Ministers also resumed 
discussion of a draft Framework Decision on 
combating racism and xenophobia.  They approved the 
Regulation establishing the EU Agency for 
Fundamental Rights thus allowing the Agency to start 
up work in Vienna on March 1, 2007.  Full text of 
Council conclusions has been transmitted to EUR/ERA. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
INTEGRATION OF PRUM TREATY INTO THE EU LEGAL ORDER 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶2.  The Council agreed to incorporate the main 
provisions of the Treaty of Pr|m (dealing with data 
sharing and police cooperation, especially in the 
fight against terrorism, cross-border crime and 
illegal migration) into the EU legal order.  The 
resulting draft decision will be forwarded to the 
European Parliament for its comments and the process 
is expected to be completed by the end of the German 
Presidency in June 2007.  The Treaty of Pr|m, which 
was signed by seven EU countries (Austria, Belgium, 
France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and 
Spain) in May 2005, provides for cross-border 
cooperation of police and judicial authorities. 
Participating states grant each other automatic 
access to specific national databases, amounting to 
a quantum leap in the cross-border sharing of 
information, according to a statement by the German 
Presidency.  Because it was intended to further 
develop European cooperation, the Treaty of Pr|m was 
designed from the start to be incorporated into the 
EU legal framework.  Nine more EU member states 
(Finland, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, 
Sweden, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece) have since 
declared their intention to join it.  At the January 
14-16 informal JHA ministerial in Dresden, the 
German Presidency had rallied strong support for 
transposing the treaty into the EU legal framework. 
 
¶3.  Speaking at a joint press conference, German 
Interior minister/Council chair Schduble and 
Commission Vice-President Frattini said the 
conversion into the EU legal order would affect all 
aspects related to the EU's "third pillar" except 
for Article 18 of the Treaty of Pr|m relating to 
cross-border police intervention in case of an 
imminent danger that will be further examined at a 
later stage. (Frattini hinted he might come back 
with proposals to the effect).  Minister Schduble 
said the UK and Ireland invoked "specific problems" 
with Article 18 but reported a "clear willingness" 
on the part of all delegations to implement the 
Treaty of Pr|m "as a whole."  Schduble further 
stated, "Transposing the treaty into EU legislation 
will enable all 27 EU Member States to benefit from 
the enormous added value provided by the treaty. 
Our aim is to create a modern police information 
network for more effective crime control throughout 
Europe.  The special value of the treaty lies in the 
substantially improved and efficiently organized 
procedures for information-sharing.  The initial 
implementation phase has yielded promising results, 
demonstrating that the Pr|m Treaty contributes 
significantly to strengthening internal security in 
Europe." 
 
TRANSFERING SENTENCED PERSONS TO THE HOME COUNTRY 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶4.  The Council reached the necessary consensus on a 
draft Framework Decision designed to allow the 
transfer of sentenced EU citizens to another country 
 
BRUSSELS 00000536  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
for the purpose of enforcement of the sentence 
imposed.  German Justice Minister/Council chair 
Zypries said the legislation was meant to increase 
the proportion of sentences served in the prisoner's 
home country, where he or she would have the best 
chances of reintegration into society.   The new 
rules will only apply to prisoners convicted after 
member states will have implemented the Framework 
Directive (for which they will have a two years' 
delay).  At the JHA Council in December 2006 
(REFTEL), Poland refused to take extra prisoners and 
shocked its (then) 24 partners and the Commission by 
vetoing the draft.  Following long discussions with 
the Poles, the Germans rallied the necessary 
consensus, based on the recognition that Poland 
needs more time than the other member states to cope 
with the practical and material consequences of the 
transfer of its citizens convicted in other member 
states.  A temporary derogation of a limited scope 
for a maximum period of five years was granted to 
Poland by its initially reluctant partners. 
Commission Vice-President Frattini explained that 
Poland would "at any time be able to notify its 
partners that it no longer avails itself of this 
derogation."  The Poles also agreed that Polish 
citizens could only be transferred with their 
consent. 
 
COMBATING RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA 
------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  Over lunch, Ministers resumed discussion of a 
draft Framework Decision on combating racism and 
xenophobia, which the Council failed to approve in 
spite of protracted negotiations in the years 2003- 
¶2005.  The draft had then been resisted by Italy and 
the Nordics, who saw the proposed common rules as 
infringing on freedom of speech and fundamental 
liberties.  Following the change of government in 
Italy, a key obstacle appears to have been lifted 
and the German Presidency is willing to win support 
for a proposal perceived as a moral imperative. 
Speaking to the press, Minister Zypries declined to 
go into specifics but declared herself confident 
that all delegations were now prepared to consider 
the adoption of legislation that would "give a clear 
message that the EU will not tolerate racism and 
xenophobia." 
 
¶6.   German officials in Brussels are privately 
complaining about the presentation of this proposal 
in the media, saying the press was wrong to present 
the plan as banning the wearing of Nazi uniforms or 
symbols (e.g. the swastika).  Such a ban, they say, 
would not be based on the EU legislation but it 
would be up to the individual member states to make 
it a punishable offence.  EU sources said the 
Presidency was actually trying to rally delegations 
around a text establishing that the following 
intentional conduct will be punishable in all EU 
countries: 
 
-- Publicly inciting to violence or hatred, even by 
dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or 
other material, directed against a group of persons 
or a member of such a group defined by reference to 
race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic 
origin. 
 
-- Publicly condoning, denying or grossly 
trivializing: 
 
- Crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and 
war crimes as defined in the Statute of the 
International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 
8) directed against a group of persons or a 
member of such a group defined by reference to 
race, color, religion, descent or national or 
ethnic origin, and 
 
- Crimes defined by the Tribunal of N|remberg 
(Article 6 of the Charter of the International 
Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) 
directed against a group of persons or a member 
of such a group defined by reference to race, 
color, religion, descent or national or ethnic 
origin. 
 
¶7.   Under the draft Framework Decision (FD), member 
 
BRUSSELS 00000536  003 OF 003 
 
 
states would be required to ensure that such 
activities are punishable by a maximum of at least 1 
to 3 years of imprisonment.  The FD would not have 
the effect of modifying the obligation to respect 
fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles, 
including freedom of expression and association, as 
enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU.  Member states 
would not have to modify their constitutional rules 
and principles relating to the freedom of 
association, freedom of the press and freedom of 
expression (which would reassure the Nordics). 
 
OTHER ISSUES 
------------ 
 
¶8.  Ministers also: 
 
-- Formally approved the Regulation establishing 
the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (following 
the political agreement concluded under the 
Finnish Presidency in December 2006; see 
REFTEL), thus allowing the Agency to start up 
work in Vienna on March 1, 2007; 
 
-- Authorized the Director of EUROPOL to conclude 
a draft agreement with Australia and to enter 
into negotiations on an agreement with 
Montenegro. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9.  The Pr|m Convention is of particular interest to 
U.S. officials interested in gaining access to 
database information on fingerprints, DNA, and 
vehicle registration in EU member states to prevent 
and combat terrorism and other serious transnational 
crimes.  As reported by Embassy Berlin, U.S. and 
German officials have initiated discussions of a 
possible bilateral Pr|m-like Convention that would 
incorporate selected concepts and procedures from 
the Treaty but not all the EU data privacy 
provisions.  Successful negotiation of such an 
agreement would likely have applications for the 
entire European Union.  END COMMENT. 
 
GRAY