1 / 64

Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last up

Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012. The European Judicial Training Network. With the support of the European Union. logo of the training organiser. Training organised by

paulos
Télécharger la présentation

Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last up

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012 The European JudicialTraining Network With the support of the European Union

  2. logo of the training organiser Training organised by (name of training organiser) on (date) at (place) Title (of the training/ module) The European JudicialTraining Network With the support of the European Union

  3. Module 5Police cooperation Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012

  4. Contents • Introduction (history) • Exchanging information • The stakeholders • Europol • The SIS • Interpol • Liaison officers • Financial Intelligence Units • Cooperation in border areas • Police Chiefs Task Force >Module 5: police cooperation

  5. 1. Introduction • 1. Police cooperation before 1990: • Somewhat informal • Bilateral cooperation, Interpol, Trevi etc. • 2. Schengen (Convention of 1990) • Information exchange, SIS, cross-border surveillance and hot pursuit • Gradual expansion to almost all Member States • 3. Europol (1995) • 4. The Hague Programme (2004): exchange of information and internal security strategy • 5. Lisbon Treaty: institutional changes in particular >Module 5: police cooperation

  6. 2. Exchanging information • Comments: • Initial work: to facilitate the secure transmission of information • Europol: sharing and analysis of information • ‘Principle of availability’ • Source of problems often= internal coordination issues >Module 5: police cooperation

  7. 2. Exchanging information • 2.1. Legal procedure for the exchange of information • Article 39 of the Schengen Convention has long been the only general legal basis (= hereinafter Art. 39) • Replaced by the Framework Decision of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information  start of implementation of the principle of availability (= hereafter the FD) • (Note: the Prüm Treaty (partially integrated into EU law by Decision 2008/615/JHA) goes beyond the Framework Decision of 18 Dec 2006 by establishing direct access but limited to three types of information – see below) >Module 5: police cooperation

  8. 2. Exchanging information • (2.1. Legal procedure for exchange of information) • 2.1.1. Scope: General (all offences) • 2.1.2. Information concerned • Art. 39: not specified • 2006 FD: determining criterion = availability of the information. • Included: • - Anything that has already been collected (possibility of excluding anything obtained through coercive measures) • - Which already exists and to which the police have access without coercive measures (whether or not judicial authorisation is required) >Module 5: police cooperation

  9. 2. Exchanging information • (2.1. Legal procedure for exchange of information) • 2.1.3. Exclusion from use as evidence Information collected at a preliminary stage of the investigation  If the information is to be used as evidence, obligation to use judicial cooperation channels: • To obtain the info (it has not yet been transmitted) • To ‘validate’ the info (if it has already been transmitted) >Module 5: police cooperation

  10. 2. Exchanging information • (2.1. Legal procedure for exchange of information) • 2.1.4. Involvement of the judicial authority • Art. 39: where the law makes access subject to the authorisation of the judicial authority  use judicial cooperation channels • FD of 2006: • - Judicial authorisation may still be required if necessary for access to the information at national level • - The fact that judicial authorisation is required may not be in itself an obstacle to exchange via police channels >Module 5: police cooperation

  11. 2. Exchanging information • (2.1. Legal procedure for exchange of information) • 2.1.5. Grounds for refusal (FD of 2006) • the information is already in the possession of the police services but was obtained by means of coercive measures (choice left to the Member States) • conventional grounds for refusal: national interests, protecting the ongoing investigation or the safety of an individual. • possible to refuse to execute requests that appear to be manifestly disproportionate • requests relating to minor offences may be refused. >Module 5: police cooperation

  12. 2. Exchanging information • (2.1. Legal procedure for exchange of information) • new legal procedure not revolutionary but clarifies the separation between police cooperation and judicial cooperation. • The decisive factor is no longer the fact that the information is subject to judicial supervision, but the fact that the request does not concern obtaining evidence. • Application of Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA evaluated in late 2011. Relatively low level of implementation. >Module 5: police cooperation

  13. 2. Exchanging information • 2.2. Direct access to police databases Prüm Treaty (2005) integrated, at least the part relating to direct access to databases, into the EU law by Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 Direct access to databases: • Vehicle registrations • Fingerprints (hit / no hit) • DNA (hit / no hit) General comments • Access via a central contact point in each Member State • Access limited to a case-by-case search >Module 5: police cooperation

  14. 2. Exchanging information • (2.2. Direct access to police databases) Direct access to vehicle registration records • The access to vehicle registration records is the most extensive under the Prüm system. This is truly direct access to the data, including personal data. This access is via the EUCARIS system. As at 1 November 2012, the following countries were ‘interconnected’: DE, AT, ES, BE, FR, LU, NL, RO, SI, FI. >Module 5: police cooperation

  15. 2. Exchanging information • (2.2. Direct access to police databases) Direct access to fingerprints records • Hit / no hit access: only tells you whether a fingerprint is known • If a fingerprint is known, how can more information be obtained? • Via mutual legal assistance if the information is requested for the purposes of obtaining evidence • Possibility of obtaining info via police cooperation in other cases (with 8-hour time limit for urgent cases, cf FD 2009/960/JHA) and then ‘validating’ information that proves necessary for evidential purposes • As at 12 October 2012, the following countries are connected to certain others but not all are necessarily interconnected (see the table for further details): BG, CZ, DE, ES, FR, LT, LU, NL, AT, SI, SK. See appendix for detailed info. >Module 5: police cooperation

  16. 2. Exchanging information • (2.2. Direct access to police databases) Direct access to DNA records Hit / no hit access: only tells you whether a fingerprint is known • If a fingerprint is known, how can more information be obtained? In theory, possibility of using police cooperation channelsif not at the stage of obtaining evidence but mutual legal assistance probably required by most States. • As at 12 October 2012, the following countries are connected to certain others but not all are necessarily interconnected (see the table for further details): BG, DE, ES, FR, LV, LU, NL, AT, RO, SI, SK, FI. See appendix for detailed info. >Module 5: police cooperation

  17. 3. Stakeholders and channels • Europol • The SIS • Interpol • Liaison officers • Financial intelligence units • Cooperation in border areas • Police chiefs Task Force >Module 5: police cooperation

  18. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.1. Fact sheet • Europol Convention of 26 July 1995, amended several times and replaced by ‘Europol Decision’ 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 • Became operational on 1 July 1999 • Headquarters: The Hague • Composition: about 500 officers + liaison officers >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  19. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.2. Introduction • Main function: making structured information relating to criminal investigations available to national authorities and carrying out strategic and operational analysis of this information. • Relationship with the work of the investigating judge – Europol assistance can occur: • in advance of the work of the investigating judge (the information provided by or via Europol may contribute to an investigation being opened) • during the investigation itself (Europol’s assistance may make it possible, for example, to highlight links with ongoing investigations in other Member States). >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  20. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.3. Objectives • => Improve the effectiveness of police cooperation by providing assistance to national police authorities. • Europol is not a European ‘FBI’ • => no investigative power of its own and supervision over investigations retained at Member State level >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  21. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.4. Competences • 3.1.4.1. Material field of action: Exhaustive list but broad types of crime • 3.1.4.2. ‘Temporal’ fields of action: prevention and suppression • 3.1.4.3. ‘Territorial’ field of action: must generally involve at least two Member States >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  22. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.5. Structure • Management board • Director • Staff • d) Europol National Units (UNE) • = interface between the national level and Europol • Often grouped with Interpol national bureau, SIRENE bureau etc. • Mandatory channel for transmitting information to Europol >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  23. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.5. Structure >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  24. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.5. Structure National situation Indicate here the contact details of the ENU in your country >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  25. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.5. Structure • e) Liaison Officers and National Liaison Bureaux • Each Member State seconds at least one liaison officer to Europol. • On average, four liaison officers from each Member State. • = extension of the ENU: contact between the ENU and Europol goes through them. • Cooperation not only within Europol but also between liaison officers (bilateral coop) National situation Indicate here the contact details of the Europol liaison officers in your country >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  26. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6. Europol’s reach • 3.1.6.1. Exchange, sharing and analysis of information • Main added value of Europol = ability to process and analyse information • 3.1.6.1.1. Exchanging info • Not strictly Europol, but rather the channel of the liaison officers at Europol >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  27. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.2. Providing information: the Europol information system (EIS) • - Operational since 2005 • - Contains data on perpetrators and suspects • - Accessible online to the ENUs and liaison officers >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  28. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.2. Providing information: the Europol information system (EIS) Practical example Conducting an investigation into drugs trafficking, the Austrian police suspect X of playing a coordinating role in the criminal organisation. By entering X’s personal data into the EIS, the Austrian ENU discovers that X is also a suspect in a similar investigation conducted by the Italian police. Following this information, the Austrian liaison officer will contact his Italian colleague in The Hague to initiate cooperation. [Ex_mod5_V10_europol_1.1] For example, in late 2011, the EIS contained data on 183 240 objects and 41 193 individuals, and 111 110 searches were run through the system in the past year. The crime areas concerned were drug trafficking (25% of all objects), trafficking in human beings (23%), forgery of money (18%), robbery (10%) and fraud (5%) . >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  29. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.3. Information analysis: analysis work files • = Temporary files created for a specific crime issue Practical example (part I) Italy requests the creation of an analysis work file on the trafficking of human beings from Central Asia. [Ex_mod5_V10_europol_2.1] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  30. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.3. Information analysis: analysis work files • Each Member State may choose whether to participate • In 2005, 18 analysis work files were created at Europol Practical example (part II) France and Belgium decide to participate in the analysis work file, since, based on information provided by Italy, the French and Belgian policebelieve it is likely that one or more joint criminal networks are involved. The analysis group therefore comprises Italian, French and Belgian and Europol analysts. [Ex_mod5_V10_europol_2.2] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  31. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.3. Information analysis: analysis work files • Participants add info to the analysis file • The file contains detailed data about individuals (broader than suspects and perpetrators) Practical example (part III) As part of a case falling within the field of action of analysis work file F, the Belgian police monitor X, who is suspected of acting as a contact with prostitution networks, for several months. They encode data in the analysis work file regarding X, such as surname; first name; address; vehicle; places frequented; lifestyle; personality traits; identifying physical characteristicsetc. [Ex_mod5_V10_europol_2.3] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  32. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.3. Information analysis: analysis work files Practical example (part IV) The Italian police seize a mobile telephone during a search. The telephone is fitted with an anonymous prepaid card but, following contact with the telephone operator concerned, the Belgian police are able to draw up a list of the telephone numbers with which communications have taken place during the previous months. All these telephone numbers and their subscribers, if known, will be encoded in the analysis work file. [Ex_mod5_V10_europol_2.4] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  33. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.3. Information analysis: analysis work files • Expected results: bringing to light hidden characteristics that can be used by investigators, such: • - revealing a modus operandi • - identifying the routes used by the criminal organisation • - the role played by certain individuals in the network • - … >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  34. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.3. Information analysis: analysis work files • Role of the judicial authorities in the analysis work files •  varies from one State to the next •  in some States, the decision to start adding info to the file falls to the judicial authority >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  35. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.4. SIENA platform • Latest of Europol’s key tools. • Enables interconnection between Europol databases, information exchanged bilaterally by liaison officers at Europol, and national databases. • Will automate the transmission of information to Europol. • Eventually, it will also act as a platform for the exchange of information between databases in the Member States. • 330,000 messages exchanged in 2011 via SIENA >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  36. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.1.5. Europol strategic analysis • Includes the annual report on the organised crime threat analysis •  taken into account by the Council to identify annual priorities •  source of European criminal policy and the security plan >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  37. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.6.2. Europol’s involvement in managing investigations • Protocol of 30 November 2002: • Europol may request (non-binding) that national authorities initiate investigations • Europol may participate in joint investigation teams (see Module 4) • 3.1.6.3. Material, logistical and expert support • Various resources, expertise e.g. in euro counterfeiting. Hosts the European Cybercrime Centre >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  38. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.7. Cooperation beyond the EU • Europol partnerships with third States and international organisations • Require formal agreements • These agreements may include the exchange of personal data >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  39. 3.1. EUROPOL • 3.1.8. Conclusion =>at European level, judicial officers involved in judicial cooperation will generally liaise with Eurojust and/or the European Judicial Network • But contact with Europol may occur at various stages: • the decision to open the investigation may be based on information transmitted by Europol (analysis work file); • investigators may approach Europol liaison officers as a channel for requesting certain information from other Member States; • searches of the EIS by investigators may lead to new developments in the investigation, for example by revealing links with other cases; • 4. an investigation may be facilitated by insights gained from a Europol analysis work file; • 5. if a matter is referred to Eurojust, it may consult Europol and request its assistance; • 6. setting up a joint investigation team should lead to Europol employees being asked to participate in that team. >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  40. 3.2. The SIS • 3.2.1. Introduction • The Schengen Information System (SIS) = to issue an alert for persons and objects for measures to be taken if the person or object is found in one of the Schengen States • Created by the 2000 Conv. • Work underway to replace the SIS with the SIS II, more effective, but significant difficulties in this project. The SIS II should be operational in 2013. >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  41. 3.2. The SIS • 3.2.2. Territorial scope • As at 1 September 2009: • ‘Old’ EU member countries of the Schengen area: Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Finland. • ‘Recent’ EU countries that joined the Schengen area on 21 December 2007: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Rep., Hungary, Slovenia, Malta • Non-EU member countries of the Schengen area: Iceland, Norway + (December 2008) Switzerland >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  42. 3.2. The SIS • 3.2.2. Territorial scope • The following countries should have access in the next few years: • EU countries that are future members of the Schengen area: Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania • EU countries not members of the Schengen area: United Kingdom • => Ireland has indicated its commitment to joining the SIS, but this process appears to have stalled. >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholders and channels

  43. 3.2. The SIS • 3.2.3. Structure • A central system located in Strasbourg (C-SIS). • National systems (N-SIS), ‘mirrors’ of the C-SIS • One authority per Member State responsible for inputting the data  National situation Indicate here the SIS central authority for your country • One SIRENE bureau per State responsible for supplementary exchanges of information >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

  44. 3.2. The SIS • 3.2.4. How it works • Several types of alert, defined by the object (that which is inputted) and the purpose (measure to be taken if the object is found) • Main alerts: • - Persons wanted for extradition purposes or on the basis of an EAW (see Module 8) • -Alerts for objects with a view to seizure • - Alerts for persons or vehicles with a view to discreet surveillance >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

  45. 3.2. The SIS • 3.2.4. How it works • Issue of an alert: by the SIS national central authority but on any request from a competent authority • Executing the alert: in the event of a hit, the authority that finds the person or object must take the requested measure attached to the alert (e.g. seizure of the object). >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

  46. 3.2. The SIS • 3.2.4. How it works • Access to the SIS: • in principle, the SIS is not an investigative tool, only a checking tool • However: accessedby Europol, Eurojust and potentially by the State security agencies (SIS II) National situation Indicate here the authorities with access to the SIS in your country Indicate here the contact details of your SIRENE bureau >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

  47. 3.2. The SIS Practical example 1. Alert request by a competent authority of State A (E.g.: As part of a drug trafficking case, police in Marseilles (France) want to trace a vehicle with registration number XYZ. They request an alert for the vehicle in order for it to be searched. 2. Verification and encoding by the SIRENE Bureau of State A 3. If appropriate, transmission of supplementary information via the SIRENE Bureaux E.g. By way of supplementary information, the French SIRENE Bureau transmits the fact that the search is based on the suspected presence of heroin in the vehicle. [ex_mod5_V10_SIS_1.1] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

  48. 3.2. The SIS Practical example (part II) Automatic updating of the C-SIS Transmission of the alert to the N-SIS of the other Member States and validation of the alert by the SIRENE Bureaux of the other Member States => The alert is now operational throughout the Schengen Area. [ex_mod5_V10_SIS_1.2] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

  49. 3.2. The SIS Practical example (part III) 6. ‘Hit’ in Member State B and execution of the requested action E.g.: During a routine road traffic check, Barcelona police stop vehicle XYZ. The officer in question transmits the vehicle’s details to his information centre; having checked the national data base, the information centre informs the officer that the vehicle is the subject of an alert and that a search is required. The officer carries out the search but does not find any trace of drugs in the vehicle. [ex_mod5_V10_SIS_1.3] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

  50. 3.2. The SIS Practical example (part IV) Transmission of information about the ‘hit’ from the SIRENE Bureau of State B to the SIRENE Bureau of State A. E.g.: The Spanish SIRENE Bureau transmits the following information to the French SIRENE Bureau: place and time of the check, persons present in the vehicle, result of the search. [ex_mod5_V10_SIS_1.4] >Module 5: police cooperation > 3. Stakeholdersand channels

More Related