Sisäasiainministeriö E-KIRJELMÄ SM2006-00558 Ihanus Anne 22.12.2006 Eduskunta Suuri valiokunta Viite Asia EU/OSA; Ehdotus Montenegron lisäämisestä niiden valtioiden luetteloon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan sopimusneuvottelut (27.3.2000 tehdyn neuvoston päätöksen muuttaminen) U/E-tunnus: EUTORI-numero: Ohessa lähetetään perustuslain 97 :n mukaisesti selvitys ehdotuksesta Montenegron lisäämiseksi niiden valtioiden luetteloon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan sopimusneuvottelut. Poliisiylitarkastaja Kaarle J. Lehmus LIITTEET Perusmuistio SM2006-00557, asiakirja 16245/06 EUROPOL 100 (englanniksi)
2(2) Asiasanat Hoitaa Tiedoksi oikeus- ja sisäasiat, Europol, poliisiyhteistyö OM, SM, UM EUE, PLM, STM, TH, TM, TPK, VM, VNEUS Lomakepohja: Eduskuntakirjelmä
Sisäasiainministeriö PERUSMUISTIO SM2006-00557 Ihanus Anne 22.12.2006 Asia EU/OSA; Ehdotus Montenegron lisäämisestä niiden valtioiden luetteloon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan sopimusneuvottelut (27.3.2000 tehdyn neuvoston päätöksen muuttaminen) Kokous Liitteet Viite EUTORI/Eurodoc nro: U-tunnus / E-tunnus: - - Käsittelyn tarkoitus ja käsittelyvaihe: Asiakirjat: Europolin hallintoneuvosto päätti kokouksessaan 28. 29.11.2006 esittää neuvostolle Montenegron lisäämistä niiden valtioiden luetteloon, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja valtuutetaan aloittamaan neuvottelut yhteistyösopimuksista (neuvoston päätös 27.3.2000). Ehdotusta käsitellään seuraavan kerran artikla 36 -komiteassa 25. 26.1.2006, josta se lähetettäneen hyväksyttäväksi oikeus- ja sisäasioiden neuvostoon 15. 16.2.2006. 16245/06 EUROPOL 100 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. 42909 SM/PO, poliisiylitarkastaja Kaarle J. Lehmus, p. 42539 SM/PO, ylitarkastaja Marjo Waismaa, p. 42722 SM/PO, EU-avustaja Anne Ihanus, p. 42858
Pääasiallinen sisältö: 2(4) Suomi voi hyväksyä neuvoston 27.3.2000 tekemän päätöksen muuttamisen siten, että Montenegro lisätään luetteloon valtioista, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja voi aloittaa neuvottelut yhteistyösopimuksista. Suomi katsoo, että operatiiviset syyt puoltavat yhteistyön kehittämistä Europolin ja Montenegron välillä. Europolin hallintoneuvosto esittää neuvostolle, että Montenegro lisättäisiin luetteloon niistä valtioista, joiden kanssa Europolin johtaja voi aloittaa neuvottelut yhteistyösopimuksista. Säännökset sopimusmenettelystä sisältyvät neuvoston 27.3.2000 tekemään päätökseen Europolin johtajan valtuuttamisesta aloittamaan neuvottelut sopimuksista kolmansien valtioiden ja muiden kuin Euroopan unioniin liittyvien elinten kanssa (EYVL C 106, 13.4.2000). Päätöksen nojalla Europolin johtaja voi aloittaa neuvottelut 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 Montenegroa tulevaksi sopimuskumppaniksi Europolin hallintoneuvosto on tutkinut useiden edellytysten täyttymistä. Hallintoneuvosto toteaa, että Montenegrosta peräisin oleva järjestäytynyt rikollisuus, joka käsittää muun muassa huumausainekaupan, laittoman maahanmuuton, ihmiskaupan, taloudellisen rikollisuuden ja tupakan salakuljetuksen, on uhka EU:n jäsenvaltioille. Montenegro mainitaan tällä hetkellä myös kolmessa Europolin analyysitietokannassa. Operatiiviset tarpeet puoltavat siten yhteistyön luomista Europolin ja Montenegron välille. Hallintoneuvosto toteaa, että Montenegro on ratifioinut vuonna 2005 Euroopan neuvoston tietosuojasopimuksen, minkä johdosta Europol tutkii maan tietosuojan tason ja arvioi sen perusteella, tulisiko Montenegron kanssa neuvotella strateginen sopimus (ei sisällä henkilötietojen vaihtoa) vai operatiivinen sopimus (sisältää myös henkilötietojen vaihtoa). Operatiivinen sopimus voidaan neuvotella vain, mikäli Montenegron tietosuojasäännökset ovat EU:n vaatimalla tasolla. Kansallinen käsittely: Sisäasiainministeriön poliisiosasto Eduskuntakäsittely: - Käsittely Euroopan parlamentissa: - Kansallinen lainsäädäntö, ml. Ahvenanmaan asema: Ehdotuksella ei ole vaikutusta kansalliseen lainsäädäntöön.
Taloudelliset vaikutukset: 3(4) Ehdotuksella ei ole taloudellisia vaikutuksia. Muut mahdolliset asiaan vaikuttavat tekijät: -
4(4) Asiasanat Hoitaa Tiedoksi oikeus- ja sisäasiat, Europol, poliisiyhteistyö OM, SM, UM EUE, PLM, STM, TH, TM, TPK, VM, VNEUS Lomakepohja: Perusmuistio, EU-ohje
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 18 December 2006 16245/06 LIMITE EUROPOL 100 NOTE From: To: No. prev. doc. : Subject : Europol Article 36 Committee Co-operation with Montenegro Delegations please find in Annex a document which the Europol Management Board recently endorsed. In the document it is suggested to add Montenegro to the Council's list of countries with which Europol may start negotiations in order to conclude a draft co-operation agreement. 16245/06 NB/tas 1 DG H II A LIMITE EN
ANNEX EUROPOL The Hague, 31 October 2006 File nº 3710-271 Co-operation with Montenegro Possibility of adding Montenegro to the Council List 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to outline the need for and to describe the advantages of establishing a co-operation agreement with Montenegro. The Management Board is invited to discuss this report and is requested to decide whether it should be recommended to add Montenegro to the Council list of those countries with which the Director of Europol may enter into negotiations 1. The questions quoted in italics below are those that were established as the criteria for determining new third partners within Annex 4 of the final report of the Management Board Partnership Ad Hoc Group 2. 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? 1 2 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 2000. See Europol document 3710-40r2 on Procedures in relation to co-operation agreements with third States and non-eu-related bodies. 16245/06 NB/tas 2 ANNEX DG H II A EN
This question can be answered in the positive, on the basis of the following elements: - Drugs trafficking: although the local drugs market is relatively small, Montenegro, due to its geographical position, has traditionally been a major transit area for criminal networks. The port of Bar remains one of the main sea gates in the Balkans for illegal trafficking of drugs, particularly heroin and to lesser extend synthetic drugs, to western and northern European countries. - Illegal immigration: in most reports on illegal immigration in the Balkan region, Montenegro is mentioned together with Serbia. In this view, the ethnic Albanian and Turkish organised crime groups are mentioned, in particular in OCTA 2006, as being active in many crime areas, including facilitated illegal immigration. - Trafficking in human beings: there are significant communities from Montenegro across the EU that may potentially support the activities of organised crime originating from the country. The recent decision to fully secede from Serbia has meant that there is now a need for new identity and travel documents issued locally to citizens of this fully independent state. It is possible that there may be teething logistical problems with regard to visa issue as a result of the need to set up fully functioning embassies in the new capital city of Podgorica. This clearly represents a challenge to law enforcement locally and internationally from those who may seek to traffic human beings. - Economic crime is one of the major threats in Montenegro, causing losses of significant portion of public revenue. It is mainly caused by tax and customs evasion in which perpetrators use forged documents as well as fictitious companies registered abroad and set up circuitous trade schemes with the neighbouring countries. The total revenue loss caused by these crimes amounts to 17,2 million. Cross border smuggling of excise goods is also a problem, especially oil and oil derivates (caused 9 million revenue loss in 2003). Smuggling of large amounts of cash has also been reported. 16245/06 NB/tas 3 ANNEX DG H II A EN
- Illicit tobacco trade: Montenegro is known to be a hot spot for illicit tobacco trade from which cigarettes are smuggled into the EU. Is the country regularly mentioned in AWFs and/or in Europol databases? - AWF Mustard: the available data indicate the importance of Western Balkan groups in the trafficking of heroin and related precursor chemicals e.g. acetic anhydride. Local Montenegrin groups act mostly as intermediaries, relying on heroin provisions by Turkish groups, and are linked with Albanian and Kosovo Albanian groups which are most prominent in the region. - AWF Synergy: available data indicate that the consumption of synthetic drugs in the country is increasing. Moreover, the Western Balkan region has traditionally been a key area in the illicit diversion and trafficking of precursor chemicals including BMK and ephedrine which are used for the production of synthetic drugs. - AWF Soya recently received a contribution relating to suspects originating from Montenegro and responsible for the distribution of a new dangerous offset counterfeit euro. Is the country a target of EU criminal organisations? On the basis of the available information, Montenegro does not seem to be affected by EU originating organised crime. What is the quality and quantity of the operational information and intelligence exchanged between the EU MS and the country? No information is currently received by Europol from Montenegro. 16245/06 NB/tas 4 ANNEX DG H II A EN
3 EXTERNAL STRATEGY Based on the Strategy for the External Dimension of Justice and Home Affairs: Global Freedom, Security and Justice, adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 December 2005, the Management Board adopted in October 2006 Europol s External Strategy 2006-2008 1. This instrument foresees Montenegro s inclusion to the Council list of third parties with which it is authorised to enter into negotiations. 4 EU POLITICAL NEEDS AND POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS 2 4.1 Montenegro s independence On 21 May 2006 Montenegro organised a referendum on independence. According to the report of the international observation mission deployed by OSCE/ODIHR accompanied by representatives of other international bodies, the referendum was conducted in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments, as well as other international standards for democratic electoral process. On 31 May 2006 the Republic Referendum Commission confirmed the results, according to which 55.5% of voters expressed their support for independence whereas the turnout reached 86.5% of those eligible to vote. Recognising legitimacy of the whole process, the EU Council adopted on 12 June 2006 Conclusions whereby the EU and its Member States decided to develop further their relations with the Republic of Montenegro as a sovereign, independent state. Since then a number of Member States have confirmed recognition of the Republic of Montenegro and announced readiness to conclude bilateral diplomatic relations. On 15 June 2006 the Government of Serbia officially recognised Montenegro. The Government of Montenegro declared the European integration to be one of the strategic priorities for the Republic. It also decided to inform the EU about the intention to pursue bilateral relations, notably negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, starting from the point achieved before the referendum. 1 2 See Strategy for the External Dimension of Justice and Home Affairs: Global Freedom, Security and Justice Doc 15446/05 JAI 448 RELEX 741; Management Board Meeting of 11 and 12 July 2006, External Strategy of Europol, The Hague, 21 June 2006, File no. 3710-241. Information provided in this Section stems from the Commission s website: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/montenegro/index_en.htm 16245/06 NB/tas 5 ANNEX DG H II A EN
4.2 EU Montenegro relations Since 2001 Montenegro, along with Serbia, has benefited from the EU policy advice provided through the EU-FRY Consultative Task Force (CTF), later replaced by the Enhanced Permanent Dialogue (EPD). The task of EPD is to encourage and monitor reforms on the basis of the European Partnership adopted by the EU Council in June 2004 and updated in January 2006. The current text, which takes due account of the respective competences and different priorities of Montenegro and of Serbia, will require however an adaptation following the change in the status of the Republic of Montenegro. The EPD structures will remain in place and continue providing support for the reforms in Montenegro until formal contractual relations between the EU and Montenegro are established through the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) in the context of the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP). On the basis of decisions taken at the Thessaloniki Summit in June 2003 and confirmed on several occasions by the EU, Montenegro is a potential candidate country for the EU accession. In its Feasibility Report of 12 April 2005, the Commission concluded that Serbia and Montenegro is sufficiently prepared to negotiate an SAA with the EU. On 25 April 2005, the EU Council endorsed the Feasibility Report and invited the Commission to submit the negotiating directives for the SAA. In line with the twin-track approach the negotiations with the State Union and the two constituent Republics were launched in October 2005, whereas the Commission made clear that the continuation and pace of talks would depend on the progress in adressing by Serbia and Montenegro of issues highlighted by the Commission and the EU Council, including achievement of full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) without delay. Since then two official and two technical rounds of talks were conducted and progress was made in discussion on the text of the future agreement. Following a negative assessment on the state of co-operation of Serbia and Montenegro and the failure of Serbia to locate, arrest and transfer Ratko Mladić to the Hague, submitted by ICTY, the Commission decided on 3 May 2006 to call off the next round of negotiations. 16245/06 NB/tas 6 ANNEX DG H II A EN
In the light of the outcome of the referendum in Montenegro the Commission announced its intension to submit to the Council a proposal for a new SAA negotiating mandate for talks with the Republic of Montenegro. The SAA will be a comprehensive agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part. Similar to the Europe Agreements with countries of the Central and Eastern Europe, the SAA will provide a legal framework for the relations between the EU and Montenego for the entire period prior to the possible future accession. 5 EFFECTIVENESS OF MONTENEGRO 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 effectiveness of Montenegro s implementation of a future co-operation agreement with Europol is obviously difficult to assess at this stage. It can however be stressed that Montenegro s Government has improved the legislative framework concerning trafficking in human beings and has increased the numbers of investigations and convictions of traffickers recently. It is also worth mentioning that Montenegro s police Director has, in a letter addressed to Europol s Director in June 2006, expressed its interest in establishing and developing cooperation with Europol. 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? 16245/06 NB/tas 7 ANNEX DG H II A EN
Europol has proposed to negotiate three new co-operation agreements (Liechtenstein, Montenegro and China). Europol will also strive at transforming the existing strategic agreements into operational ones, subject to the existence of the appropriate data protection framework in the interested countries. Europol believes that it is able to do the additional work with its current resources. If an agreement with Montenegro comes into force there will be a need for a safe communication line between Europol and the central contact point in Montenegro. The overall financial implications should be included in Europol s future financial planning. 7 CONCLUSION On the basis of the above mentioned elements, the Europol Management Board is invited to advise the Council to add Montenegro to the Council s list of countries with which Europol may start negotiations of a cooperation agreement. Since Montenegro has in September 2005 ratified the Council of Europe 108 Convention on the protection of personal data, its implementing data protection legislation will have to be assessed by Europol in order to determine whether a strategic or an operational agreement should be negotiated. Should Montenegro s data protection legal framework not meet EU standards, a strategic agreement should be first negotiated, following the approach adopted with Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia. 16245/06 NB/tas 8 ANNEX DG H II A EN