DOCSLIB.ORG

The EU and the Fight Against Organised Crime I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The EU and the Fight Against Organised Crime I N T R O D U C T I O N 3 The EU and the fight against organised crime Hugo Brady April 2007 Centre for European Reform, 14 Great College Street, London, SW1P 3RX Copyright of this publication is held by the Centre for European Reform. You may not copy, reproduce, republish or circulate in any way the content from this publication except for your own personal and non-commercial use. Any other use requires the prior written permission of the Centre for European Reform. © CER APRIL 2007 ★ ISBN 978 1 901 229 72 1 The Centre for European Reform is a think-tank devoted to improving the quality of the debate on the European Union. It is a forum for people with ideas from Britain and across the continent to The EU and the discuss the many political, economic and social challenges facing Europe. It seeks to work with similar bodies in other European countries, North America and elsewhere in the world. fight against The CER is pro - E u ropean but not uncritical. It re g a rds European integration as largely beneficial but recognises that in many respects the Union does not work well. The CER there f o re aims to pro m o t e new ideas for re f o rming the European Union. organised crime Director: CHARLES GRANT ADVISORY BOARD PERCY BARNEVIK........................................ Board member, General Motors and Former Chairman, AstraZeneca CARL BILDT............................................................................................................... Swedish Foreign Minister ANTONIO BORGES..................................................................................................... Former Dean of INSEAD NICK BUTLER (CHAIR)....................... D i r e c t o r, Centre for Energy Security & Sustainable Development, Cambridge IAIN CONN ................................................................................................. Group Managing Director, BP p.l.c. LORD DAHRENDORF .......................... Former Warden of St Antony’s College, Oxford & European Commissioner VERNON ELLIS............................................................................................ International Chairman, Accenture RICHARD HAASS................................................................................... President, Council on Foreign Relations LORD HANNAY.................................................................................... Former Ambassador to the UN & the EU IAN HARGREAVES.............................................. Former Group Director of Corporate and Public Affairs, BAA plc LORD HASKINS ........................................................................................... Former Chairman, Northern Fo o d s FRANÇOIS HEISBOURG................................................ Senior Advisor, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique LORD KERR.............................. Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell and Former Permanent Under Secretary, FCO FIORELLA KOSTORIS PADOA SCHIOPPA............................................... P r o f e s s o r, La Sapienza University, Rome RICHARD LAMBERT......................................................... Director General, The Confederation of British Industry PASCAL LAMY......................................................... Director General, WTO and Former European Commissioner D AVID MARSH........................................................................... D i r e c t o r, London & Oxford Capital Markets plc DOMINIQUE MOÏSI................................................ Senior Advisor, Institut Français des Relations Internationales JOHN MONKS.............................................................. General Secretary, European Trade Union Confederation DAME PAULINE NEVILLE-JONES........................................... Chairman, IAAC and Former Political Director, FCO CHRISTINE OCKRENT....................................................................................... Editor in chief, France Télévision Hugo Brady WANDA RAPACZYNSKI................................................................... President of Management Board, Agora SA LORD ROBERTSON............................ Deputy Chairman, Cable and Wireless and Former Secretary General, NAT O KORI SCHAKE............................................. Research Fe l l o w, Hoover Institution and Bradley Professor, West Po i n t LORD SIMON ........................................................... Former Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe PETER SUTHERLAND......................................................... Chairman, BP p.l.c. and Goldman Sachs International LORD TURNER ............ Chairman, UK Pensions Commission and non-executive Director, Standard Chartered PLC ANTÓNIO VITORINO....................................................................................... Former European Commissioner Published by the Centre for European Reform (CER), 14 Great College Street, London, SW1P 3RX Telephone +44 20 7233 1199, Facsimile +44 20 7233 1117, [email protected], www. c e r. o r g . u k © CER APRIL 2007 ★ ISBN 978 1 901 229 72 1 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Contents Hugo Brady is a re s e a rch fellow at the Centre for European Reform , specialising in justice and home affairs, as well as the EU institutions. He previously worked at the Irish department of foreign affairs and the Institute for European Affairs. His previous CER publications About the author include (as co-author) ‘Let justice be done: Punishing crime in the EU’, April 2006; and (as co-author) ‘Fighting terrorism: The EU Author’s acknowledgements needs a strategy not a shopping list’, October 2005. Foreword AUTHOR’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Glossary My sincerest thanks go to the many EU and national government o f ficials and police officers who gave up their valuable time to 1 Introduction 1 contribute in various ways to this publication. They would 2 Europe’s Mr Bigs 5 understandably prefer to remain anonymous. Many thanks also to Ludo Block of the Free University in Amsterdam for his input; to 3 The EU’s role 15 Kate Meakins for design and layout; and to my CER colleagues for reading earlier drafts, and for their support. Any errors of analysis 4 European internal security: more to do 27 or fact are my responsibility only. 5 Foreign policy against organised crime 31 The CER is grateful to Group 4 Securicor for supporting this 6 Conclusion 39 publication. ★ Fo r e w o r d Group 4 Securicor (G4S) is pleased to support this CER working paper, which provides a valuable insight into crime and security in Europe. G4S is the global leader in providing security solutions, with 470,000 employees in over 100 countries. In many countries in which we operate, we see governments focusing their core resources on the threats posed by international terrorism and organised crime. The private sector is well equipped to support governments by taking on some roles performed traditionally by the public sector, including the management of cash in society, security at major events, protection of critical infrastructure, and an increased role in justice services. EU co-operation has made a real difference in the fight against international crime. As this report shows, this is being achieved by boosting practical co-operation between law enforcement agencies at ground level, rather than seeking a blanket harmonisation of regulations and criminal justice systems. We support such an approach in the private security industry as well. One important area of organised criminal activity is against cash-in-transit crews who provide a valuable public service in managing the cash cycle in many countries. Cash remains the most popular form of payment in Europe, and companies such as G4S ensure that it is recycled and redistributed effic i e n t l y, contributing to the vitality and liquidity of national economies. We help to fig h t cash-in-transit crime by investing resources in equipment, technology, training and systems, and by pressing governments and law enforcement agencies for the most effective protection measures. We welcome the support and co-operation we receive from the authorities and police forces in many different countries. Only a co-ordinated and proactive approach by member-states and EU institutions will tackle organised crime effectively and make Europe a safer place in which to live and do business. For our part, we in the private sector are prepared to take on an ever greater role in this fig h t . Hans Bennetzen Regional President, Northern & Western Europe, Group 4 Securicor plc G l o s s a r y 1 Introduction C ATS: Article 36 committee (Comité de l’Article Trente-Six) Transnational organised crime is a rising threat in the post-Cold Wa r CEPOL: European Police College world. The opportunities for the criminal underworld to operate a c r oss borders are multiplying in tandem with the gro w i n g COSI: EU standing committee on internal security availability of communications and information technologies; the COSPOL: Comprehensive operational strategic planning for the police increasing mobility of people, goods and services across national COREPER: Committee of member-states’ permanent representatives to the EU boundaries; and the emergence of a globalised economy. Criminal gangs now sell arms, smuggle migrants, traffic people and drugs, and ECIM: European criminal intelligence model perpetrate fraud across borders. EURODAC: EU fingerprint database of asylum applicants 1 EUROPOL: European Police Offic e T h e r e is no easy definition for what UN office on drugs and constitutes organised crime; most crime, global programme FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation criminologists
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Youth Gangs: Legislative Issues in the 109Th Congress
    Order Code RL33400 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Youth Gangs: Legislative Issues in the 109th Congress April 21, 2006 Celinda Franco Specialist in Social Legislation Domestic Social Policy Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Youth Gangs: Legislative Issues in the 109th Congress Summary Gang activity and related violence threaten public order in a diverse range of communities in the United States today. Congress has long recognized that this problem affects a number of issues of federal concern, and federal legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress to address the subject. Youth gangs have been an endemic feature of American urban life. They are well attested as early as the 18th century and have been a recurrent subject of concern since then. Contemporary views of the problem have been formed against the background of a significant adverse secular trend in gang activity during the last four decades. In particular, the rapid growth of gang membership, geographical dispersion, and criminal involvement during the violent crime epidemic — associated with the emergence of the crack cocaine market during the mid-1980s to the early 1990s — have intensified current concerns. The experience of those years continues to mark both patterns of gang activity and public policy responses toward them. Reports about the increased activity and recent migration of a violent California- based gang, the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), have heightened concerns about gangs in certain areas of the country. Policy development and implementation in this area are bedeviled by discrepant uses of the term “gang” and the absence of uniform standards of statistical reporting.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Gangs Beyond Borders
    Gangs Beyond Borders California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime March 2014 Kamala D. Harris California Attorney General Gangs Beyond Borders California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime March 2014 Kamala D. Harris California Attorney General Message from the Attorney General California is a leader for international commerce. In close proximity to Latin America and Canada, we are a state laced with large ports and a vast interstate system. California is also leading the way in economic development and job creation. And the Golden State is home to the digital and innovation economies reshaping how the world does business. But these same features that benefit California also make the state a coveted place of operation for transnational criminal organizations. As an international hub, more narcotics, weapons and humans are trafficked in and out of California than any other state. The size and strength of California’s economy make our businesses, financial institutions and communities lucrative targets for transnational criminal activity. Finally, transnational criminal organizations are relying increasingly on cybercrime as a source of funds – which means they are frequently targeting, and illicitly using, the digital tools and content developed in our state. The term “transnational organized crime” refers to a range of criminal activity perpetrated by groups whose origins often lie outside of the United States but whose operations cross international borders. Whether it is a drug cartel originating from Mexico or a cybercrime group out of Eastern Europe, the operations of transnational criminal organizations threaten the safety, health and economic wellbeing of all Americans, and particularly Californians.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • A One-Stop Shop for Fighting Serious Cross-Border Crime in the European Union and Beyond
    Eurojust: a one-stop shop for fighting serious cross-border crime in the European Union and beyond In recent years, organised crime groups have gone increasingly global. The European Union is strongly committed to fighting such crime based on the principles of justice and rule of law that define our democratic systems. Judicial and law enforcement authorities in the European Union, however, work within national legal systems, which govern what acts are considered to be crimes, which sanctions apply and how investigations and trials are conducted. To detect, investigate and effectively prosecute cross-border crimes, judicial and law enforcement authorities from different countries therefore need to work closely together. Eurojust is the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit, an EU agency located in The Hague, Netherlands. Eurojust was started in 2002 and is fully focused on providing practical support to investigators, prosecutors and judges from different countries. Judicial practitioners come to Eurojust for support in a wide range of criminal investigations, including investigations of fraud, money laundering, corruption, trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, cybercrime and terrorism. In 2018, Eurojust provided support in 6 500 cases, an increase of almost 19 % compared to 2017. Practical support and services to prosecutors and joint investigation teams Eurojust offers a range of practical tools and services especially designed for prosecutors and investigators of serious crime, including: On-call coordination for urgent requests, for example when a European Arrest Warrant needs to be quickly arranged to arrest a suspect in another country. On-call coordination is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
    [Show full text]
  • Gangs in Central America
    Order Code RS22141 Updated January 11, 2007 Gangs in Central America Clare M. Ribando Analyst in Latin American Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary The 110th Congress is likely to continue to be concerned about the effects of crime and gang violence in Central America, and its spillover effects on the United States. Since February 2005, U.S. officials have arrested more than 1,274 members of the violent Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang, raising concerns about the transnational activities of Central American gangs. Governments throughout the region are struggling to find the right combination of suppressive and preventive policies to deal effectively with the gang problem. Many analysts predict that illicit gang activities will accelerate illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and trafficking in persons and weapons to the United States. Some maintain that tough law enforcement approaches will help solve the gang problem, while others assert that unless the root causes of gang violence — poverty, joblessness, ineffective judicial systems, easy access to arms, and the social exclusion of at-risk youth — are addressed in a holistic way, the problem will continue to escalate. This report will be updated periodically. Background Although many Latin American countries are facing serious crime problems associated with gangs (maras), the largest and most violent gangs in the region operate in Central America and Mexico. Some analysts believe these gangs could pose a serious threat to the region’s stability. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are at the epicenter of the gang crisis, with some of the highest murder rates in the world. In 2004, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people was 45.9 in Honduras, 41.2 in El Salvador, and 34.7 in Guatemala.
    [Show full text]
  • The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On
    THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME EDITORS ELSPETH GUILD SERGIO CARRERA AND ALEJANDRO EGGENSCHWILER CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound analytical research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today. This paperback is published in the context of IN:EX, a three-year project on converging and conflicting ethical values in the internal/external security continuum in Europe, funded by the Security Programme of DG Enterprise of the European Commission’s 7th Framework Research Programme. The opinions expressed in this publication and the analysis and arguments given are the sole responsibility of the authors writing in a personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect those of CEPS or any other institution with which the authors are associated. ISBN 978-94-6138-034-0 © Copyright 2010, European Union and Centre for European Policy Studies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the European Union. Centre for European Policy Studies Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels Tel: 32 (0) 2 229.39.11 Fax: 32 (0) 2 219.41.51 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ceps.eu CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex I -An EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights
    An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Annex I -An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights AN EU MECHANISM ON DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Annex I - An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Abstract This Research Paper provides an overview of the existing EU mechanisms which aim to guarantee democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights within the EU itself, as set in Article 2 TEU. It analyses the scope of these mechanisms, the role of EU institutions and other relevant actors, and identifies gaps and shortcomings in the current framework. The Research Paper also includes illustrative case-studies on several key challenges, including the limits of infringement actions in addressing the threats to judicial independence in Hungary; the shortcomings of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism in Bulgaria; and the consequences of a weak fundamental rights proofing of the Data Retention Directive. The Research Paper briefly examines the monitoring mechanisms existing at international level, including the UN and the Council of Europe before considering how the EU institutions interact to protect and promote Article 2 TEU values and the role of national authorities and individuals in fulfilling this objective. An analysis of the impact of the gaps and shortcomings identified in this Research Paper is also offered, with a particular focus on the principle of mutual trust, socio-economic development and fundamental rights protection. The impact on mutual trust is discussed in an illustrative case-study on the consequences of the unequal enforcement of the European Arrest Warrant framework decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurojust Report on Trafficking in Human Beings Best Practice and Issues in Judicial Cooperation
    Eurojust Report on Trafficking in Human Beings Best practice and issues in judicial cooperation February 2021 Criminal justice across borders Eurojust Report Trafficking in Human Beings Executive summary Cross-border cases of trafficking in human beings (THB) are complex and difficult to investigate and prosecute. They reveal the prominent role of organised criminal groups. When gaps in judicial cooperation appear it is the victims of THB who suffer. In October 2020, the European Commission noted in its progress report on THB that judicial authorities in the Member States had raised serious concerns about difficulties in judicial cooperation. This report was prepared by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), with the aim of responding to these concerns. It presents solutions used by the agency when assisting in complex THB cases requiring judicial coordination. The report also aims to inform the forthcoming EU strategy against THB. It expresses Eurojust’s readiness to play a central role in the future strategy, by bringing substantial added value to the operational dimension of combating THB. The final aim of the report is to assist in successfully bringing human traffickers to justice, while protecting the victims. The report is divided into two main parts. The first part relates to the coordination of investigations and the second to victims’ rights. The report draws on the practical experience gained from Eurojust’s support of human trafficking investigations between 2017 and 2020. In total, 91 cases of THB were selected for analysis by Eurojust’s anti-trafficking team, of which 31 are illustrated in this report.
    [Show full text]