VZCZCXRO2547
PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHBS #1500/01 2701329
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 261329Z SEP 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEABND/DEA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/FBI WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNCOE/COE COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNMUC/EU CANDIDATE STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY
RUEHRK/AMEMBASSY REYKJAVIK PRIORITY
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 BRUSSELS 001500 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INL/FO, INL/PC, EUR/ERA, L/LEI; 
JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL 
AFFAIRS; 
HOMELAND SECURITY FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KCRM PGOV PREL SNAR EUN
SUBJECT: EUROJUST'S EVOLVING ROLE IN INVESTIGATING AND 
PROSECUTING TRANSNATIONAL CRIMES 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) The President of the European Union's Judicial 
Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST), Jose Luis Lopes da Mota, and the 
Chairperson of EUROJUST's External Relations Committee, Malci 
Gabrijelcic, explained their organization's increasing role 
in investigating and prosecuting serious organized crime 
within the European Union (EU).  Speaking at a September 19 
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) "Third Country" Luncheon 
hosted by the U.S. Mission for diplomats from 16 non-EU 
nations, they noted the important, evolving role of EUROJUST, 
established just five years earlier, in supporting the 
coordination of investigations and prosecutions of serious 
organized crimes that affect two or more EU Member States and 
often external nations.  Last year, EUROJUST collaborated on 
over 1,000 criminal cases.   EUROJUST's president predicted a 
stronger role in coordinating such investigations and 
prosecutions, especially if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified 
and the EU decides to create an Office of European Public 
Prosecutor.  END SUMMARY. 
 
-------------------- 
CREATION OF EUROJUST 
-------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) During a JHA Luncheon hosted by the U.S. Mission for 
colleagues from 16 non-EU countries, EUROJUST President Lopes 
da Mota provided an overview of the creation and roles of 
this international prosecutor institution.  Lopes da Mota 
described the creation of EUROJUST as part of globalization. 
Along with trade, migration, and other phenomena, organized 
crimes have become increasingly transnational and global, 
affecting citizens in multiple countries.  EUROJUST was 
established to fight such transnational crimes, including 
organized crime, money laundering, drug trafficking, arms 
trafficking, trafficking in persons, international fraud, and 
offenses related to terrorism.  Individual Member States 
retain primary jurisdiction over defining and combating 
crimes, but the growth of cross-border crimes has required 
national authorities to cooperate in a more coordinated 
manner in investigating and prosecuting such crimes.  The 
decision by EU Member States to eliminate internal border 
controls (under Schengen) has placed a premium on such 
coordination. 
 
¶3. (U) According to Lopes da Mota, EU leaders established 
EUROJUST to further the process of judicial collaboration 
directed at fighting serious crimes.  As criminals became 
more organized, authorities had to put into place more 
intrusive measures to fight criminal activities.  Over time, 
police had to develop innovative investigative measures, 
including controlled deliveries, wiretaps, and use of 
undercover agents, which often required authorization from 
judicial authorities.   Investigators and prosecutors learned 
to work together more effectively, rather than keeping 
investigations and prosecutions segregated into separate 
phases.  As criminal investigators were learning to cooperate 
across borders, during the 1990's, judicial authorities also 
came to recognize the importance of such cooperation. 
According to Lopes da Mota, the establishment of EUROJUST 
stemmed in part from developments within the Council of 
Europe (COE) (based in Strasbourg, France).  EUROJUST became 
a tangible reality in 2001, and originally located its 
offices at the Council Secretariat's Justus Lipsius Building 
in Brussels.  In December 2002, EUROJUST moved to its present 
offices in The Hague, where it is co-located with the 
International Criminal Court (ICC).  The separate European 
Police Organization (EUROPOL), established in 1999, also has 
its headquarters at The Hague.  Lopes da Mota admitted that 
EUROJUST, now at five years since its creation, remains in 
its "developing phase." 
 
 
BRUSSELS 00001500  002 OF 005 
 
 
-------------------------- 
ORGANIZATION'S COMPOSITION 
-------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) The EU Member States each send a National Member to 
EUROJUST, usually a prosecutor or investigating magistrate. 
While EUROJUST initially had 15 National Members, they have 
grown to 27, with the addition of new Member States.  Most 
National Members have a team of assistants, often including a 
deputy prosecutor or police investigator.  Accordingly, 
EUROJUST has a mix of judges, prosecutors, and police 
investigators, depending on whether the home state's legal 
system has single or separate career tracks for judges and 
prosecutors.  The overall organization has an annual budget 
of some 20 to 25 million euros.  During the most recent 
calendar year (2007), EUROJUST provided support in over 1,000 
criminal cases.  As described by Gabrijelcic, at least four 
non-EU nations, including the United States, Canada, Norway, 
and Japan, have a liaison relationship to EUROJUST, with the 
United States and Norway providing liaison prosecutors in the 
Hague to assist in pertinent trans-border criminal matters. 
 
 
--------------------------- 
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ROLES 
--------------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) According to Lopes da Mota, EUROJUST National Members 
and staff currently work on cross-border investigations and 
prosecutions in their pre-trial phase.  Their role is to 
promote and support such coordination; they do not now have 
the authority to direct or order actions.  Under their 
current mandate, EUROJUST officials can only make 
recommendations or requests.  Nonetheless, EUROJUST officials 
work closely with established points of contacts within the 
individual Member States to support coordination of cases, 
and investigators no longer need to seek information via the 
cumbersome process of transmitting letters rogatory. 
National Members often communicate directly via telephone and 
facsimile without having to communicate through Foreign or 
Justice Ministries.  The EUROJUST President noted that the 
process places responsibilities on the prosecutors themselves 
to promote such coordination proactively, rather than waiting 
for information to come as requests through more formal 
diplomatic or judicial channels.  He also mentioned that the 
European Judicial Network serves as a separate mechanism for 
coordination among Member States. 
 
¶6. (U) Noting that defendants cannot be tried in different 
jurisdictions for the same conduct ("non bis in edem"), Lopes 
da Mota remarked that in a conflict of jurisdiction, EUROJUST 
Members play important roles in recommending the best site 
for prosecution of a case.  They also play vital roles in 
coordinating multiple arrests and conducting searches of 
suspects' properties simultaneously in different member 
states to prevent suspects from fleeing to different 
jurisdictions or moving evidence.  Such simultaneous 
searches, for example, have played important roles in 
investigating far-flung criminal networks involved in using 
the Internet for child exploitation and child pornography. 
 
¶7. (U) The Treaty of Lisbon, if ultimately ratified (N.B., 
Irish voters rejected the Treaty in a June referendum), would 
expand the "acquis" or common legal framework for EUROJUST. 
One provision provides the option of creating the office of a 
European Public Prosecutor (EPP) within EUROJUST, with a 
grant of expanded powers.  Instead of merely "supporting" 
coordination of criminal cases, EUROJUST and the EPP would be 
able to "coordinate" such cases directly.   Under expanded 
powers from the Treaty of Lisbon, EUROJUST would be able to 
"decide" to prosecute cases.  EUROJUST officials would also 
have greater authority in deciding disputes over jurisdiction 
rather than making recommendations over which member states 
should prosecute a case based on the evidentiary strengths 
 
BRUSSELS 00001500  003 OF 005 
 
 
and the relative harms suffered as a result of the underlying 
crime.  Lopes da Mota observed that EUROJUST could in the 
future become a "college of national prosecutors," rather 
than its current status as a "college of individual 
prosecutors who cannot prosecute cases."  He noted (with some 
frustration) that, in his current position as EUROJUST 
President, he cannot even direct prosecutions of cases, as he 
did previously as a Deputy Public Prosecutor in his home 
country of Portugal.  He predicted, however, that EUROJUST 
will move from its relatively humble origins in the 1999 
Tampere process (a work program for the Freedom, Security, 
and Justice area) to assume robust roles in a new EUROJUST 
that could, for example, protect the financial interests of 
the EU.  Currently, most Member States do not define 
fraudulent acts against the EU as national crimes. 
 
------------------ 
EXTERNAL RELATIONS 
------------------ 
 
¶8. (U) EUROJUST's External Relations Team Chairperson 
Gabrijelcic provided a brief description of EUROJUST's 
relationships with countries outside the EU.  Echoing once 
more that criminals do not recognize national borders, she 
noted that strengthening relations with third nations has 
become an important factor in fighting organized crime by 
establishing contacts and promoting cooperation.  The 
Framework Decision on EUROJUST stipulates the types of 
external cooperation in which EUROJUST may engage.  As a 
result EUROJUST established the External Relations Team to 
work with international partners to share information on 
criminal investigations.  When necessary, they attempt to 
speed up implementation of mutual legal assistance requests. 
In addition to the network of liaison prosecutors, EUROJUST 
has signed cooperative agreements with various countries, 
including the United States, Iceland, Norway, and Croatia, 
and plans to conclude similar agreements this year with 
Switzerland and Macedonia.  Such agreements provide the legal 
grounds for exchanging information in criminal matters and 
facilitating cooperation and coordinated actions in parallel 
investigations.  EUROJUST officials also host visits by 
delegations from many countries, including brief orientation 
visits and longer "study visits."  Officials from Japan and 
South Korea have visited recently, as will representatives 
from Ukraine in the near future.  Gabrijelcic said that, 
along with the United States and the European Commission, 
EUROJUST planned to host a seminar in November in The Hague 
on implementation of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance and 
Extradition Agreements. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
MUTUAL RECOGNITION AND EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTS 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶9. (U) In response to a question, The EUROJUST President 
described the principle of mutual recognition, creation of 
the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), and the role of EUROJUST 
in implementing the EAW process.  He explained that, under 
the principle of mutual recognition, the orders of the 
judicial authorities of one Member State should be recognized 
as having the same legal effects as decisions by judges in 
other Member States.  He observed that the 1950 Convention of 
the Council of Europe on Human Rights, as well as established 
case law related to that convention laid the ground work for 
Member States to trust each other regarding judicial 
decisions in criminal cases.  Moreover, Article Six of the 
Treaty of the European Union stipulated that, as a matter of 
trust, all Member States shall abide by the same rules on 
respecting individual rights.  Over a 50-year process of 
"sedimentation," the Member States have agreed upon common 
interpretations of various rights, such as respect of privacy 
and the elements of fair trials. 
 
¶10. (U) Under the premise that all Member States respect the 
 
BRUSSELS 00001500  004 OF 005 
 
 
rights of individuals at equal levels of protection, the 
European Union created the European Arrest Warrant to 
supplant lengthy extradition procedures.  Now, judicial 
authorities issue orders compelling the presence of criminal 
fugitives.  A judicial atlas contains the names of such 
persons and information on the crimes for which they are 
wanted and the points of contact for the court that issued 
the decision.  Authorities throughout the EU can then access 
the information in the judicial atlas with passwords, and 
they can detain and transfer these fugitives to the 
jurisdiction of the court that issued the warrant.  If the 
fugitive's location is known, the judge cn send the 
information directly to a judge inthat locale.  More often, 
the fugitive's location is not known, and authorities enter 
such information into the Schengen Information System (SIS), 
which has its central data base in France.  Authorities in 
each Member State access such information on a daily basis 
and arrest those for whom warrants have been issued when they 
are found.  Under the former extradition system, the process 
of transfer often took one to two years.  Under the EAW, such 
transfers can occur within days or weeks.  Lopes da Mota 
noted that transfers that do not occur within a maximum of 40 
days must be reported to EUROJUST officials, who can then 
attempt to expedite the transfer. 
 
¶11. (U) In response to another question about how conflicts 
of jurisdiction are resolved when Third Nations have also 
requested the extradition of individuals who are subjects of 
European Arrest Warrants, the EUROJUST President responded 
that national authorities must decide such issues on a 
case-by-case basis.  In some instances, the individuals may 
already be serving a prison term.  If the person is serving a 
lengthy sentence, then the national authorities can negotiate 
provisional surrenders to allow prosecution of the person in 
the third country while witnesses and evidence remain 
available.  It was urged that EUROJUST set standard criteria 
for such decisions on conflicting jurisdictions that would 
apply equally when Third Nations were involved. 
 
¶12. (U) In comments from and among Third Nation JHA 
Counselors, one noted that while police in the EU at SIRENE 
(Supplementary Information Requests at the National Entry) 
Offices enjoyed access to EAW data entered into SIS, they did 
not necessarily have access to information on the existence 
of pending extradition requests from Third Nations.  Lopes da 
Mota suggested that authorities should consider creating a 
link between the SIS and International Criminal Police 
Organization (INTERPOL) databases for this purpose.  A JHA 
Counselor acknowledged that even two EU Member States, the 
United Kingdom and Ireland, currently do not have access to 
EAW data in SIS (because they had opted out of the Schengen 
system.)  Another representative indicated that the 
long-delayed, second generation of SIS (SIS II), when 
ultimately operational, should remedy the problem of access 
to EAW data by the UK and Ireland.  Nonetheless, he noted the 
critical need to establish a linkage between the INTERPOL and 
SIS II databases to permit local police to know which persons 
were subject both to pending extradition requests and EAWs. 
Another Third Nation representative expressed hope that 
information on lost and stolen passports would be entered 
into SIS II from the INTERPOL database.  The first 
representative, while agreeing with this idea, clarified that 
no final decision had been made by the EU on this issue.   In 
addition, he noted that EU Member States had not yet agreed 
to the input of data on pending extradition requests from 
non-EU nations into the SIS II database. 
 
---------------------------- 
TRANSFER OF CRIMINAL RECORDS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶13. (U) Another participant inquired about the ability to 
transfer criminal records under a Council of Europe 
Convention initially signed about 40 years ago, but which has 
 
BRUSSELS 00001500  005 OF 005 
 
 
not yet entered into force.  The EUROJUST President explained 
that only 12 to 15 of the 47 members of the Council of Europe 
have ratified this Convention, not all of whom are EU Member 
States.  He added that the EU had prepared a "Green Paper" 
three or four years ago on conflicts of jurisdiction, but 
noted with frustration that countries were still grappling 
with the issue despite discussions during the past 40 years. 
He advocated developing constructive and practical approaches 
to such issues.  For example, under the 2000 Convention of 
Palermo Against Organized Crime, the United Nations Office of 
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has responsibility for providing 
technical assistance to countries.  To his knowledge, this 
instrument is the first United Nations legal instrument that 
stipulates that States Parties "shall coordinate" on such 
assistance.   Occasionally, EUROPOL officials invite 
prosecutors and investigators of different countries working 
on the same criminal case to their facilities to discuss and 
resolve differences.  The EUROJUST President advocated that 
such actions should occur more often.  (N.B.:  A Framework 
Decision on creating a European Evidence Warrant has 
languished for years after the Council initially provided its 
political agreement, but all Member States have not provided 
final approval by removing their parliamentary reservations.) 
 
--------------- 
DATA PROTECTION 
--------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) On the issue of sharing information between 
countries that have different data protection rules, Lopes da 
Mota advocated use of a very practical approach.  He said 
judges should exchange such information directly and not 
through EUROJUST itself to avoid difficulties. 
           .      . 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶15. (SBU) EUROJUST is a relatively new institution within the 
EU bureaucracy.  Just last year, it officially attained legal 
status as an EU agency and will now have access to a budget 
from the Commission rather than depending more directly on 
contributions from EU member states.  In terms of supporting 
investigations and prosecutions, EUROJUST remains a long way 
from meeting its full potential.  Over time, however, 
EUROJUST will gain authority as Member States become more 
comfortable with the idea of coordinating criminal 
investigations and prosecutions with each other on 
cross-border crimes.  The eventual establishment of a 
European Public Prosecutor, whether within or outside the 
framework of an as-yet-unratified Lisbon Treaty, will go a 
long ways towards enhancing EUROJUST's powers and 
capabilities.  Moreover, one clear consensus of the 
representatives of the 16 non-EU nations at the September 19 
JHA luncheon was that coming together and discussing issues 
of mutual concern was a welcome opportunity for all.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
MURRAY 
.