The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/1673 of the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and of the COUNCIL of 23 October 2018 on Combating Money Laundering by Criminal Law
L 284/22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 12.11.2018 DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/1673 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 83(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure ( 1 ), Whereas: (1) Money laundering and the related financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal market and the internal security of the Union. In order to tackle those problems and to complement and reinforce the application of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2), this Directive aims to combat money laundering by means of criminal law, enabling more efficient and swifter cross-border cooperation between competent authorities. (2) Measures adopted solely at national or even at Union level, without taking into account international coordination and cooperation, would have very limited effect. The measures adopted by the Union to combat money laundering should therefore be compatible with, and at least as stringent as, other actions undertaken in international fora. (3) Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommen dations and instruments of other international organisations and bodies active in the fight against money laun dering and terrorist financing. -
Security and Defence in Unpredictable Times
Berlin BSC Security Conference 16th Congress on European Security and DefencDefence Europe under pressure – security and defence in unpredictable times About the Congress: 28 – 29 November 2017 » One of the largest yearly events on European Security and Defence Vienna House Andel’s Berlin » Meeting place for up to 1 000 participants from more than Landsberger Allee 106 50 countries D-10369 Berlin » International forum for members of parliament, politicians and representatives of the armed forces, security organisations and www.euro-defence.eu industry » Partner in 2017: Sweden » Former Partners: Russia, United Kingdom, Turkey, USA, France » Exhibition with companies from Europe and abroad » Organised by the – Germany’s leading independent Newspaper for the Civil and Military Services Advisory Board Ambassador Ji r˘ í S˘ ediv´y Michel Barnier Wolfgang Hellmich Prof Ioan Mircea Pa s¸ cu Permanent Representative Chief Negotiator, Head of Task MP, Chairman of the MEP, Vice-President of of the Czech Republic to Force under Article 50 TEU with Defence Committee, the European Parliament, NATO, former Minister of UK, former Adviser of President German Bundestag former Defence Minister Defence, Congress Juncker on Security and Defence, of Romania President BSC 2015 – 2017 European Commission Dr Hans-Gert Pöttering Michael Roth Dr Karl von Wogau Robert Walter President of the European MP, Minister of State for Secretary General of President of the Assembly Parliament ret., Chairman Europe, Commissioner for the Kangaroo Group, of the WEU 2008 – -
College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 Adopting the Opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017
College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 adopting the opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017 THE COLLEGE OF EUROJUST, Having regard to the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 (2002/187/JHA) setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, as amended by the Council Decision of 18 June 2003 (2003/659/JHA), and by Council Decision of 16 December 2008 (2009/426/JHA) (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Council Decision”), and in particular Article 36 thereof, Having regard to the Financial Regulation applicable to Eurojust and adopted by the College on 14 January 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Financial Regulation”), and in particular Article 99 (2) thereof, Having regard to the preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017, Having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 signed off by the Accounting Officer on 11 June 2018 and drawn up by the Administrative Director on 13 June 2018 and sent to the College on 20 June 2018. Whereas: (1) The final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are attached as Annex I to this opinion; (2) The Preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to a report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are included in Annex II to this opinion; (3) PKF Littlejohn LLP Independent Auditors Report on the provisional annual accounts 2017 is attached as Annex III to this opinion. -
Joint Declaration
SALZBURG FORUM ANNIVERSARY MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 23 – 24 June 2021, Prague JOINT DECLARATION of the Ministers of the Salzburg Forum The Ministers of the Interior and representatives of the Salzburg Forum Member States met on the occasion of the Salzburg Forum Anniversary Ministerial Conference held under the Czech Presidency on 23 – 24 June in Prague. The conference also gathered representatives of the Portuguese EU Council Presidency, the European Commission, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), Europol, the European Asylum Support Office as well as representatives of the Secretariat of the Joint Coordination Platform, the Ministers and representatives of the Western Balkans, Denmark Germany, Greece, Switzerland, International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), International Organization for Migration (IOM) and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Moreover, the representative from Kosovo took part as a special guest1. Commemorating the 20th anniversary of the signature of the first Salzburg Forum Joint Declaration in 2001, the Ministers of the Salzburg Forum evaluated their cooperation so far in terms of the goals anchored in the Salzburg Forum Vision 2020 as well as discussed the future direction of the Salzburg Forum. 1 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 1 Reiterating the importance of the Salzburg Forum as the largest regional cooperation platform in the area of Home Affairs within the European Union, the Ministers of the Salzburg Forum adopted the Salzburg Forum Agenda 2030 as a new multi-annual strategic document setting goals for their cooperation in the next ten years. -
Archbold Review 5-6, and the News Pieces of EU Legislation in the Area of Justice and Home Item, [2016] 2 Archbold Review 9
Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Archbold Review Cases in Brief Appeal—inconsistent verdicts—development of case law— the clear law set out in Devlin J’s test and apply it rather than reassertion of proper test—undesirability of elaboration of test the reformulation in Dhillon. The Stone test did not need in judgments; Court of Appeal—proper approach of Court to elaboration, but rather careful application to the circum- development of case law stances of each case. In particular (the contrary having been FANNING AND OTHERS [2016] EWCA Crim 550; suggested), different tests did not apply to multiple counts April 28, 2016 arising out of a single sexual episode, and those arising over (1) Giving judgment in four conjoined appeals, the Lord a long period of time; and it was unnecessary and inappropri- Chief Justice reviewed the authorities on the role of the jury ate to compare the circumstances of one case with another and the approach of the court to applications to appeal based as was urged on the court in R v S [2014] EWCA Crim 927. on what were said to be inconsistent verdicts by the jury. The (3) Although the approach the Court set out needed no fur- starting point was the adoption of the approach set out by ther elaboration, it was necessary to mention three matters: Devlin J in Stone [1955] Crim LR 120, quoted in Hunt [1968] 2 (a) the burden to show that verdicts could not stand was with QB 433 and formally adopted in Durante (1972) 56 Cr.App.R the applicant; (b) a jury may logically find a witness credible 708, that the burden was on the applicant to show that the on one count but not another (contra an interpretation of Griz- verdicts could not stand together, that is, that no reasonable zle [1991] Crim LR 553 and Cilgram [1994] Crim LR 861); and jury could have arrived at that conclusion, which was fact- (c) in the overwhelming generality of cases it would be appro- specific. -
Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order. -
Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the European Parliament
ASSOCIATION OF ACCREDITED LOBBYISTS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT OVERVIEW OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FORUMS AALEP Secretariat Date: October 2007 Avenue Milcamps 19 B-1030 Brussels Tel: 32 2 735 93 39 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.lobby-network.eu TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………..3 Executive Summary……………………………………………………….4-7 1. European Energy Forum (EEF)………………………………………..8-16 2. European Internet Forum (EIF)………………………………………..17-27 3. European Parliament Ceramics Forum (EPCF………………………...28-29 4. European Parliamentary Financial Services Forum (EPFSF)…………30-36 5. European Parliament Life Sciences Circle (ELSC)……………………37 6. Forum for Automobile and Society (FAS)…………………………….38-43 7. Forum for the Future of Nuclear Energy (FFNE)……………………..44 8. Forum in the European Parliament for Construction (FOCOPE)……..45-46 9. Pharmaceutical Forum…………………………………………………48-60 10.The Kangaroo Group…………………………………………………..61-70 11.Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN)…………………………………..71-79 Conclusions………………………………………………………………..80 Index of Listed Companies………………………………………………..81-90 Index of Listed MEPs……………………………………………………..91-96 Most Active MEPs participating in Business Forums…………………….97 2 INTRODUCTION Businessmen long for certainty. They long to know what the decision-makers are thinking, so they can plan ahead. They yearn to be in the loop, to have the drop on things. It is the genius of the lobbyists and the consultants to understand this need, and to satisfy it in the most imaginative way. Business forums are vehicles for forging links and maintain a dialogue with business, industrial and trade organisations. They allow the discussions of general and pre-legislative issues in a different context from lobbying contacts about specific matters. They provide an opportunity to get Members of the European Parliament and other decision-makers from the European institutions together with various business sectors. -
The Police Foundation's Response
Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee E - Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection & Sub-Committee F - Home Affairs, Health and Education) Joint inquiry into the UK’s 2014 Opt-out Decision (Protocol 36) The Police Foundation’s response About the Police Foundation The Police Foundation is the only independent charity focused entirely on developing people's knowledge and understanding of policing and challenging the police service and the government to improve policing for the benefit of the public. The Police Foundation acts as a bridge between the public, the police and the government, while being owned by none of them. Founded in 1979 by the late Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Police Foundation has been highly successful in influencing policing policy and practice, through research, policy analysis, training and consultancy. Introduction 1. Under Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the UK is entitled to withdraw from approximately 130 EU policing and criminal justice measures. The Government has until 31 May 2014 to decide whether to continue to be bound by the measures, or whether to use its right to opt out. The right to opt out is exercised en bloc, i.e. all pre-Lisbon measures must be opted out of in one go. Application could then be made to opt back into specific measures. 2. The Home Secretary has announced that the government is currently minded to use its right to opt out of all the pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate with the European Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures which are judged to be in the national interest.1 At this stage it is not clear which measures the Home Office would plan to opt back in to, which it would like to opt out of completely, and the reasons for this approach. -
Ministry of Interior Salzburg Forum Ministerial Conference
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR SALZBURG FORUM MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE Budapest, Hungary 19-20 June 2017 JOINT DECLARATION The Ministers of Interior of the Salzburg Forum Member States met on 19-20th June 2017, upon the invitation of the Hungarian Presidency of the Salzburg Forum. The Conference was also attended by the respective Ministers belonging to the Group of Friends from the Western Balkans and Moldova, as well as by representatives of the European Commission, Europol, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Interpol and ICMPD. The participating Ministers have agreed on the following in relation to the main agenda points discussed: 1. Border security, migration, asylum The Ministers of Interior of the Salzburg Forum stated that illegal migration pressure at the South-Eastern external land borders of the European Union is currently perceived as relatively low compared to the years 2015 and 2016. This pressure has decreased due to the result of both the EU-Turkey Joint Statement and the determined efforts of some EU Member States and non-EU countries implemented with the aim of the protection of the external borders. They recognized the importance of the prevention of the development of a crisis situation similar to the one that emerged in 2015, and reiterated their common support to all regional cooperation initiatives serving this purpose. The Ministers stressed that in the future, the basis for managing migratory flows must be the reduction or stemming of the flows to the greatest possible extent; and – wherever possible – the prevention of illegal migration already in countries of origin and transit. This should be the primary aim of any common action in the framework of the EU migration policy. -
The European Arrest Warrant Conflicts Between European and German
The European Arrest Warrant ─ Conflicts between European and German Constitutional Law? by Beate Hoppe, Kai Werner and Jan Asmus Bischoff, Hamburg (Germany) I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 II. The European Arrest Warrant under the Treaty of Nice ............................................... 2 1. Third pillar as the legal basis for the EAW 3 2. Provisions of the EAW 4 3. Aims and Benefits of the EAW 6 III. The German Implementation Legislation and the Judgment by the Federal Constitutional Court ................................................................................................................ 7 1. The European Arrest Warrant Act of 21 July 2004 8 2. Federal Constitutional Court Judgment of 18 July 2005 8 3. Changes in Legislation and their Constitutionality 12 IV. The Treaty of Lisbon ....................................................................................................... 15 1. Legislative Competences under the Treaty of Lisbon in the field of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters 15 2. Legislative Acts and their effect in the Member States’ legal orders 17 3. Consequences for the Arrest Warrant 18 V. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 19 I. Introduction More than ever before, the European Union influences national criminal law and national criminal procedure. Actual trends include ever closer harmonization -
Brexit and EU Agencies What the Agencies’ Existing Third Country Relations Can Teach Us About the Future EU- UK Relationship Nicolai Von Ondarza / Camille Borrett
Working Paper SWP Working Papers are online publications within the purview of the respective Research Division. Unlike SWP Research Papers and SWP Comments they are not reviewed by the Institute. RESEARCH DIVISION EU / EUROPE | WP NR. 02, APRIL 2018 Brexit and EU agencies What the agencies’ existing third country relations can teach us about the future EU- UK relationship Nicolai von Ondarza / Camille Borrett Contents Introduction 3 I. The EU’s defined interest 4 II. EU agencies and their relevance to Brexit 5 The integrity of the single market 7 Relevance for Northern Ireland 8 Internal and external European security 11 III. EU agencies relationships with third countries 12 Full participation (EEA model) 12 Bilateral cooperation agreements 14 Fringe cases 20 IV. The UK and EU agencies during transition 23 Conclusions 25 List of Abbreviations 28 Overview: EU Agencies and their third country relationships 29 2 Introduction The Brexit negotiations are amongst the most complex the European Union has conducted. After more than 45 years of membership the UK’s exit from the EU is about more than leav- ing the Union’s institutions and its major policy areas. It is also, crucially, about its disen- tanglement from the EU legal order as well as the rules and regulations governing the single market and beyond. One crucial example in order to understand how this disentanglement of the legal order will affect the future relationship, are the 36 agencies the EU has set up to help regulate its single market and support coordination between its members states across many different policy areas.1 Almost two years after the UK’s population voted to leave the EU and less than a year until its formal exit, legally set for 29 March 2019, the Brexit talks are entering the next crucial stage. -
008514/EU XXVII.GP Eingelangt Am 15/01/20
008514/EU XXVII.GP Eingelangt am 15/01/20 Council of the European Union Brussels, 15 January 2020 (OR. en) 14884/1/19 REV 1 PV CONS 68 JAI 1301 COMIX 575 DRAFT MINUTES COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (Justice and Home Affairs) 2 and 3 December 2019 14884/1/19 REV 1 1 JAI EN www.parlament.gv.at CONTENTS Page 1. Adoption of the agenda ................................................................................................................. 4 2. Approval of "A" items .................................................................................................................. 4 a) Non-legislative list b) Legislative list HOME AFFAIRS Non-legislative activities 3. The future of EU migration and asylum policy ............................................................................ 5 4. The future of EU Internal Security ............................................................................................... 5 5. Update by the Counter-Terrorism Group (CTG) on further cooperation between competent authorities dealing with counter-terrorism ................................................................................... 5 Legislative deliberations 6. Any other business........................................................................................................................ 5 Current legislative proposals Non-legislative activities 7. Implementation of interoperability ............................................................................................... 6 8. Implementation of the European Border and