Sisäasiainministeriö E-KIRJE SM PO Waismaa Marjo EDUSKUNTA Suuri valiokunta

Transkriptio

1 Sisäasiainministeriö E-KIRJE SM PO Waismaa Marjo EDUSKUNTA Suuri valiokunta Viite Asia EU/OSA; Ehdotus Intian lisäämisestä niiden valtioiden luetteloon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan sopimusneuvottelut U/E-tunnus: EUTORI-numero: Ohessa lähetetään perustuslain 97 :n mukaisesti selvitys ehdotuksesta Intian lisäämiseksi niiden valtioiden luetteloon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan sopimusneuvottelut ( tehdyn neuvoston päätöksen muuttaminen). Ylitarkastaja Marjo Waismaa LIITTEET Perusmuistio SM ja 17337/08 EUROPOL 84

2 2(2) Asiasanat Hoitaa Tiedoksi Europol SM EUE, OM, PLM, STM, TH, TPK, VM, VNEUS Lomakepohja: Eduskuntakirjelmä

3 Sisäasiainministeriö PERUSMUISTIO SM PO Waismaa Marjo Asia EU/OSA; Ehdotus Intian lisäämisestä niiden valtioiden luetteloon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan sopimusneuvottelut ( tehdyn neuvoston päätöksen muuttaminen) Kokous Liitteet Viite EUTORI/Eurodoc nro: U-tunnus / E-tunnus: - - Käsittelyn tarkoitus ja käsittelyvaihe: Asiakirjat: Europolin hallintoneuvosto päätti kokouksessaan esittää neuvostolle Intian lisäämistä niiden valtioiden joukkoon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan neuvottelut yhteistyösopimuksista (neuvoston päätös ). Asia oli esillä Artikla 36 -komiteassa /08 LIMITE EUROPOL 84 EU:n oikeuden mukainen oikeusperusta/päätöksentekomenettely: Käsittelijä(t): Suomen kanta/ohje: Europol-yleissopimuksen 42 artiklan 2 kohta, 10 artiklan 4 kohta sekä 18 artikla; neuvoston yksimielinen päätös SM/PO, poliisijohtaja Kari Rantama, p SM/PO, ylitarkastaja Marjo Waismaa, p SM/PO, poliisiylitarkastaja Kaarle J. Lehmus, p Suomi voi hyväksyä neuvoston tekemän päätöksen muuttamisen siten, että Intia lisätään luetteloon valtioista, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja voi aloittaa neuvottelut yhteistyösopimuksista.

4 Pääasiallinen sisältö: Kansallinen käsittely: Eduskuntakäsittely: 2(4) Suomi katsoo, että riittävät operatiiviset syyt puoltavat yhteistyön kehittämistä Intian kanssa. Lisäksi neuvosto on jo vuonna 2004 katsonut, että Europolin olisi kehitettävä yhteistyösuhteitaan Intiaan. Europolin hallintoneuvosto esittää neuvostolle, että Intia lisättäisiin luetteloon niistä valtioista, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja voi aloittaa neuvottelut yhteistyösopimuksista. Säännökset sovellettavista menettelyistä sisältyvät neuvoston tekemään päätökseen Europolin johtajan valtuuttamisesta aloittamaan neuvottelut sopimuksista kolmansien valtioiden ja muiden kuin Euroopan unioniin liittyvien elinten kanssa (EYVL C 106, ). Tämän päätöksen nojalla Europolin johtaja voi aloittaa sopimusneuvottelut päätöksessä mainittujen tahojen kanssa. Jos kuitenkin harkitaan sopimusta, johon sisältyy henkilötietojen välittämistä Europolista kolmansille valtioille, neuvottelut voidaan aloittaa vasta, kun neuvosto on yksimielisesti päättänyt Europolin hallintoneuvoston neuvostolle toimittaman selvityksen perusteella, että tällaisille neuvotteluille ei ole estettä. Harkitessaan Intiaa tulevaksi sopimuskumppaniksi Europolin hallintoneuvosto on tutkinut useiden edellytysten täyttymistä. Hallintoneuvosto toteaa, että Intiasta peräisin olevalla järjestäytyneellä rikollisuudella, joka käsittää erityisesti laittoman maahanmuuton, tuoteväärennökset, laittoman huumausainekaupan ja valuutan väärentämisen, on vaikutusta EU:hun. Operatiivinen intressi tehdä yhteistyötä Intian kanssa on olemassa. Intian ei kuitenkaan katsota olevan valtio, josta aiheutuisi EU:lle vakavaa uhkaa. Europoliin on suunnattu jatkuvaa poliittisen tason painetta yhteistyösopimuksen aikaansaamiseksi. EU-Intia huippukokouksessa päätettiin EU:n ja Intian välisestä strategisesta kumppanuudesta. Tässä yhteydessä esillä oli myös Europolin ja Intian yhteistyö. Viimeksi toukokuussa 2008 julkaistussa OSA-ulkosuhteita koskevassa raportissa neuvoston sihteeristö alleviivasi EU:n toimenpiteiden puuttumista Europol- Intia yhteistyösopimuksen osalta. Hallintoneuvosto toteaa, että ihmisoikeuksien näkökulmasta yhteistyösopimuksen tekemiselle ei näyttäisi olevan merkittäviä oikeudellisia tai poliittisia esteitä. Intiassa toimivat vakaat demokraattiset instituutiot ja yhteiskunta perustuu oikeusvaltioperiaatteelle ja ihmisoikeuksille. Intia on allekirjoittanut YK:n yleismaailmallisen ihmisoikeusjulistuksen. Eräät kansalaisjärjestöt ja akateemiset tahot ovat tosin raportoineet Intian poliisin syyllistyneen joissakin tapauksissa mielivaltaiseen ja valikoivaan lainvalvontaan. Sisäasiainministeriön poliisiosasto - Käsittely Euroopan parlamentissa: -

5 Kansallinen lainsäädäntö, ml. Ahvenanmaan asema: 3(4) Ehdotuksella ei ole vaikutusta kansalliseen lainsäädäntöön. Taloudelliset vaikutukset: Ehdotuksella ei ole taloudellisia vaikutuksia. Muut mahdolliset asiaan vaikuttavat tekijät: -

6 4(4) Asiasanat Hoitaa Tiedoksi Europol SM EUE, OM, PLM, STM, TH, TPK, VM, VNEUS Lomakepohja: Perusmuistio, EU-ohje

7 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 15 December /08 LIMITE EUROPOL 84 NOTE From: To: Subject : Europol Management Board Article 36 Committee Co-operation with India Delegations will find in Annex a letter of the Chairman of the Europol Management Board together with a document which the Europol Management Board recently endorsed. In the document it is suggested to add India to the Council's list of countries with which Europol may start negotiations in order to conclude a draft co-operation agreement /08 EB/tas 1 DGH 3A LIMITE EN

8 EUROPOL Management Board The Hague, 10 December 2008 MBS ANNEX Mr Javier Solana Secretary-General Council of the European Union Brussels Dear Secretary-General, During its 3-4 December 2008 meeting the Management Board agreed, based on the enclosed documentation, to recommend the Council to add India to the list of third States and non-eu-related bodies with which the Director of Europol may start negotiations on cooperation agreements. I would be grateful if this matter could be included on the agenda of the next Committee on Article 36 meeting for further handling. Yours sincerely, = Bernard Petit Chairman of the Management Board Enclosure: Country report on India ( ) 17337/08 EB/tas 2 ANNEX DG H 3A LIMITE EN

9 EUROPOL Management Board 3-4 December 2008 Item 08e MB to discuss The Hague, 05 November 2008 File no EDOC # v7 Co-operation with India Possibility of adding India to the Council List 1 Introduction The purpose of this document is to outline the different parameters to be taken into account when envisaging the negotiation of a cooperation agreement with India. The Management Board is invited to discuss this report and is requested to decide whether it should be recommended to add India to the Council list of those countries with which the Director of Europol may enter into negotiations. 1 This document includes the operational reasons for a possible co-operation with India and refers to the approach outlined in the Discussion paper concerning the review of the Europol External Strategy The questions quoted below in italics are those that were established as the criteria for determining new third partners as described in Annex 4 of the final report of the Management Board Partnership Ad Hoc Group. 3 2 Operational needs Based on HENU advice and taking into account the working priorities of Europol, the following matters should be taken into consideration: Are the O.C. and/or the ethnic groups originating from the country a threat to the EU MS, based on the threat assessments and strategic analysis? Is the country regularly mentioned in AWFs and/or in Europol databases? Is the country a target of EU criminal organisations? What is the quality and quantity of the operational information and intelligence exchanged between the EU MS and the country? As set out in Article 2 of the Council Decision of 27 March 2000 authorising the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations with third States and non-eu-related bodies, OJ C 109/01 of 13 April Document submitted during the MB meeting of September 2008 See Europol document r2 on Procedures in relation to co-operation agreements with third States and non-eu-related bodies /08 EB/tas 3 ANNEX DG H 3A LIMITE EN

10 As an indication of activity, how many EU MS liaison officers are posted in the country? India is not widely regarded as a country posing a high threat to the EU. Nor is it immediately apparent that EU criminal organisations target India. The 2008 OCTA made no significant mention of India or Indian OC. Nevertheless, in a number of crime areas which fall within the Europol mandate, it is clear that the 'commodities' which lie at the heart of the crime emanate from India. This implicitly identifies the existence in India of OC, which indirectly has an effect on the EU. Four main areas can be identified: Illegal immigration: The Indian sub-continent is a well known source of illegal migrants coming to the EU. Traditionally, this has been driven by the poor standard of life within India (relative to the EU). The recent boom in the Indian economy could therefore have a 'slow-down' effect on this. Facilitated Illegal Immigration from India is better organised than from Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The Indian facilitation networks appear to be better structured and display more of a start to end capacity. Unlike the Pakistani and Bangladeshi networks, they do not rely on Arab or Islam networks to assist in the facilitation. Counterfeiting / product piracy: like many other developing countries, the rapidly advancing technical production capacity of the Indian economy has led to the proliferation of counterfeiting. The lack of a parallel evolution of regulatory frameworks may be a facilitating factor in this. One area of particular interest to Europol is the counterfeiting of pharmaceuticals. India was one of the main sources of counterfeit drugs seized by EU customs authorities at the EU borders in both 2006 and Drug trafficking: India is a major source of (pseudo) ephedrine, the principal precursor used globally for methamphetamine production. It is also a source of equipment, in particular, tableting machines, used in the production of synthetic drugs in the Netherlands and Belgium. Additionally, India is one of the major producers of acetic anhydride, an important chemical used in the production process of heroin. Currency counterfeiting: Open source information estimates that up to 30% of the paper money in circulation in India is counterfeiting. This is currently limited to the Indian Rupee. Due to the fact that the Rupee is not a 'world currency', the impact on the EU is negligible. Nevertheless, such a high prevalence of counterfeit money indicates the existence of an extensive and well developed counterfeiting capacity (printing etc). Hence, one can perceive a possible future threat to the EU should this effort be re-directed towards the counterfeiting of the Euro. No information has been received from the Indian authorities in any of these crime areas. Some information comes indirectly from Member States, or other 3rd party cooperation partners like Interpol & WCO. The existence of large and well established Indian diaspora communities in the EU is a significant factor. Initially they act as a 'pull factor' which attracts other Indians to these established communities. Additionally, they facilitate the EU end of criminal business emanating from India. The true significance of India is somewhat difficult to define precisely, due to the occasional tendency to amalgamate all of the Indian sub-continents (India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal & Sri Lanka) /08 EB/tas 4 ANNEX DG H 3A LIMITE EN

11 3 External Strategy During the Management Board of September 2008, Europol submitted a Discussion paper concerning the review of the Europol External Strategy in which Europol informed the MB that an increasing number of external requests for cooperation had been received since the adoption of the Europol External Strategy , amongst which the request of the Republic of India stands out. Indeed, Europol identified the Republic of India as the only third country for which Europol experienced strong and continuous political pressure for concluding a cooperation agreement. These requests originate from the Indian authorities themselves but also from the EU political level (as described in point 4 below). In this context, Europol requested the MB to decide on how to address India s demand and whether to consider adding the Republic of India to the Council list. In turn, the MB requested Europol to provide a Country report on India for its consideration to propose adding the Republic of India to the Council list. 4. EU Political needs and possible constraints Does it fit into EU priorities/programmes and/or action/stability plans, such as: JHA multi-annual Presidency programmes? II Pillar decisions and preferences? EU Action Plans? Does the country now or in the near future border the EU territory? Are there important legal and political obstacles with regard to human and fundamental rights (based on human rights evaluations by the Second Pillar WG) and data protection reports? Is there a sudden high political interest based on international developments such as terrorism? a. EU Political needs: In a communication entitled A secure Europe in a better world presented to the European Council in June 2003, EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana identified India as one of the countries with which the EU should establish strategic partnerships (the others being Russia, Japan, China and Canada) in addition to the United States. The Commission Communication on an EU-India Strategic Partnership of June 2004 proposed that the strategy be guided by, inter alia, the following objectives: promoting peace, stability, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance, fighting terrorism and illicit trafficking. In the same Communication, a first reference to cooperation between Europol and the Republic of India was made (without consulting Europol) /08 EB/tas 5 ANNEX DG H 3A LIMITE EN

12 India became one of the EU s Strategic Partners 1 as expressed during the fifth EU-India Summit of 8 November 2004 during which it was formally decided to upgrade the EU-India relationship to the level of a Strategic Partnership to be supported through the implementation of an Action Plan. On the occasion of the said EU India Strategic Partnership, reference to cooperation between Europol and the Republic of India was reiterated. At their sixth summit on 7 September 2005 in New Delhi, the EU and India adopted the above-mentioned Action Plan which sets the course for the future EU India strategic partnership. The action plan covers a wide range of issues grouped under five main chapters: 1. Strengthening dialogue and consultation mechanisms 2. Political dialogue and cooperation 3. Bringing people and cultures together 4. Economic policy dialogue and cooperation 5. Developing trade and investment In the context of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Chapter (bullet point 2 above), it is foreseen that in the Fight against terrorism and organised crime, joint efforts will be pursued; contacts between Indian and EU counter-terrorism coordinators will be established. The Country Strategy Paper for India ( 470 million in total a yearly average of 67 million) concentrates EU funds on health, education and the implementation of the Joint Action Plan. More recently, in the Second report on the implementation of the JHA External Strategy published in May 2008, the Council Secretariat emphasised the lack of actions on the EU side with regard to the Europol-India cooperation agreement. b. Possible Constraints: It seems that there are no important legal and political obstacles with regard to human and fundamental rights as, according to the European Commission s unit for relations with India, the Indian society is founded on democratic values that are firmly anchored in India s constitutional framework. According to the Commission, both the EU and India are founded on stable democratic institutions and rule of law, freedom of the press and respect for human rights which are enshrined in the tenets of both societies. It has also to be mentioned that India is a signatory of the UN Declaration on Universal Human Rights, a fact which is reflected in the cooperation agreement between the EU and India, signed on 20 December 1993, which stipulates that respect for human rights is the basis for cooperation. 1 According to the Commission, India is one of only six countries of such strategic importance for the EU /08 EB/tas 6 ANNEX DG H 3A LIMITE EN

13 5. Effectiveness of India s implementation of a co-operation agreement Based on Europol evaluation, including the advice of the MS and the Commission, the following matters should be considered: Does the country have appropriate and efficient law enforcement structures? Can the country fulfil the obligations mentioned in the potential agreement (essential elements of data protection requirements, confidentiality rules, the human and fundamental rights issues)? What is the quality level of the actual relevant information and intelligence coming from the country? The Police is one of the biggest employers of manpower in India. During the period , the police strength increased by 280.5%. The civil police currently accounts for about 70.2% and the armed police for about 29.8% of the total police force. In terms of the total police strength (civil plus armed), the ratio is per 10,000 population 1. According to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) 2, the Indian police has a hierarchical/pyramidal structure, the basis of which is very heavy, accounting for about 87.61% of the total strength. Though there has been considerable increase in expenditure on police in absolute terms, as a proportion of the total government budget it has registered a decline. The break up of police expenditure shows that some areas are not being accorded due priority: only 1.20% of police expenditure was spent on Police Training in As shown above, India has a plethoric and structured police, however it does not automatically entail that the said police is efficient since the budget is relatively decreasing and somehow not properly allocated. Some NGOs and academics 3 denounce the arbitrary and selective enforcement of laws by the Indian police, in particular when it comes to the enforcement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). According to these sources, the enforcement of POTA has varied widely across the country, resulting in arbitrary enforcement against lower castes, tribal, and religious minority communities, violations of protected speech and associational activities, prosecution of ordinary crimes as terrorism-related offences, and police misconduct and abuse. Despite the mixed records of India in terms of respect of human rights by the Indian police, it is nonetheless apparent from point 4 above that the EU regards India as a democratic society governed by the rule of law. It can thus be inferred that India has the necessary legal tools and political willingness to abide by its obligations towards Europe in general and Europol in particular. However, it must be noted that India has not signed, neither ratified, the 108 Convention on Data Protection Data on police Organisation in India, 2001 published by the Bureau of Police Research and Development. The CHRI is a UK/Indian non-partisan, non-profit, independent international non-governmental organisation mandated to work towards the practical realisation of human rights in Commonwealth countries. Columbia Journal of Asian Law 17337/08 EB/tas 7 ANNEX DG H 3A LIMITE EN

14 As to the quality level of the relevant information and intelligence coming from India, Europol is of the opinion that such level can not be measured in a detailed manner. Experiences made in Member States seem to indicate mixed levels of satisfaction concerning the cooperation with India. 6 Europol Resources Does the present workload allow for a new agreement? What are the Budget, IT and Human Resources capacities of Europol for the implementation of the agreement? With regard to the practical implementation (once the agreement is in force), is there a need to limit co-operation to specific OC domains? The present workload allows for the negotiation and conclusion of a strategic agreement with India. If an agreement with India comes into force there will be a need for a safe communication line between Europol and the central contact point in India. Should, at a later stage, an operational agreement be put in place there may also be a need for liaison office facilities if India plans to send a liaison officer to Europol. The overall financial implications (i.e. safe communication line, liaison office) should be included in Europol s financial planning for 2009 or later. 7 Conclusion In light of India s willingness to cooperate with Europol coupled with the EU s stance for a closer cooperation between Europol and India, and considering that there is an operational interest to cooperate with India (despite the fact that no significant mention of India or Indian OC is made in the OCTA 2008, the Europol Management Board is invited to consider to propose adding India to the Council s list of countries with which the Director of Europol may enter into negotiations, after giving careful consideration to the mixed records of India in terms of respect of human rights and, in case of a possible operational cooperation agreement, data protection guarantees /08 EB/tas 8 ANNEX DG H 3A LIMITE EN