Revised transcript of evidence taken before. The Select Committee on the European Union

Transcription

1 Revised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on the European Union Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection (Sub-Committee E) Home Affairs, Health and Education (Sub-Committee F) Inquiry on THE UK'S 2014 OPT-OUT DECISION (PROTOCOL 36) Evidence Session No. 11 Heard in Public Questions WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY am Witnesses: Michèle Coninsx and Frances Kennah

2 1 Members present Lord Bowness (Chairman) Lord Avebury Viscount Bridgeman Lord Hannay of Chiswick Baroness O Loan Lord Rowlands Lord Sharkey Lord Stoneham of Droxford Examination of Witnesses Michèle Coninsx, President of Eurojust and National Member for Belgium, and Frances Kennah, National Member for the United Kingdom, Eurojust. Q179 The Chairman: Perhaps I may welcome Michèle Coninsx, the President of Eurojust, and Frances Kennah, the National Member for the United Kingdom on Eurojust, to this evidence session. If I can explain very briefly the position, this is an inquiry which two Sub-Committees of the European Union Committee of the House of Lords the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection and the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub- Committees are carrying out into the United Kingdom s 2014 opt-out decision. You will know that the United Kingdom Government have said at this present stage that they are currently minded to exercise that opt-out. We have taken a lot of evidence, some of which you may have seen on the website, from many disciplines. We hope, after this session and further evidence sessions, to have a final session with the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor on 13 February, and we will publish a report by the end of the parliamentary Session in May. That report is planned to cover the merits or otherwise of the opt-out decision, if that is going to be the decision, what measures the UK should seek to rejoin if the opt-out is exercised, and, of course, the report will be there to inform the House of Lords when a vote is taken, which the

3 2 Government have promised will take place. We do not know when and we do not know the terms of that vote. That is a matter, in time, for them. For the record, may I say that, as you probably realise, a verbatim transcript is being taken, which will be posted on the parliamentary website? You will be sent a copy of the transcript. If you wish to make any alterations in the interests of accuracy, please do so, but I warn you that it is published before that process is complete. If there are any points that you wish to make subsequent to this session, please do so. Madame Coninsx, is there anything you want to say before moving to questions? If you prefer, we can move direct to questions. I would ask that, when you first speak, again for the record and the transcript, you could introduce yourself and describe your office. I should also tell Members of the Committee that, according to our papers, we have two witnesses, not only Madame President of Eurojust but the National Member for the United Kingdom at Eurojust, Frances Kennah. I have to say to Members that you will not be able to put any questions to Frances Kennah. She has received directions from the Home Office that she cannot answer questions on the record in this inquiry, although she can attend and listen to these proceedings. On a personal basis, she has kindly said that if, for the furtherance of our interest in the matter, we want to ask her questions merely to inform ourselves about what Eurojust and National Members do, we can do that informally. It must be made very clear that that will not be part of the evidence session. So I thank Ms Kennah for being here. I am sorry your journey, in a sense, will not be fulfilled in the way that we hoped that it would be, but we do appreciate that it is not your fault, and I am sure that we may ask questions elsewhere as to why your journey has proved to be somewhat unfruitful. Baroness O Loan: Can I ask, Lord Chairman, when this decision was communicated? The Chairman: This morning, I believe, or yesterday. Frances Kennah: It was yesterday evening.

4 3 Q180 The Chairman: But it should be said that the process and the knowledge that this session was taking place has been in the hands of whoever is responsible for a very long time. Madame Coninsx, I am afraid that you are going to have to bear the burden of all the questions. Can I perhaps start by asking you, in your opinion, what would be the effect for UK police and law enforcement agencies if the UK ceased to participate in Eurojust, and have you any idea what the operational and financial consequences would be? Michèle Coninsx: Thank you very much for that question. While Eurojust is an European judicial co-operation body involved with judicial co-ordination, co-operation, facilitation, acceleration of Mutual Legal Assistance requests and the execution of European Arrest Warrants, Eurojust has been involved in the setting-up and monitoring of Joint Investigation Teams. To be out of this exercise means being unable to benefit from these services offered by Eurojust, the judicial co-ordination meetings, the facilitation of Mutual Legal Assistance requests, the acceleration and execution of European Arrest Warrants, with the simultaneous and synchronised co-ordination of European Arrest Warrants in relation to criminal networks, and also the setting-up and funding of Joint Investigation Teams. The best thing I can do is give you examples of where, for instance, the UK was involved in judicial co-ordination efforts in recent years to see what happened throughout. Thanks to that co-ordination, there was a case opened at Eurojust in 2011 and I have to look at my papers here which was a trafficking in human beings case starting in the Czech Republic where females were being trafficked and sent to the United Kingdom in order to be put into prostitution activity. It is thanks to the co-ordination between those two countries that we could put our hands on the 11 ringleaders. That was done throughout the co-ordination effort by setting up a Joint Investigation Team. It was absolutely vital to discuss how both

5 4 countries were competent, which was the best place to prosecute, what was the best jurisdiction and how to gather and secure the best evidence possible. This was discussed throughout, and, thanks to the Joint Investigation Teams, all the players were sitting together, eye to eye, in a very simple and effective way to exchange their points of view. Both the UK and the Czech Republic were equally competent but it was important to secure the best evidence ever. That was done throughout the setting-up of the Joint Investigation Team and led, three months later, to the arrest of 11 ringleaders. What I would say is that you may choose for the bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance where we have five countries involved in a criminal network, and from one country to another you start bilaterally to exchange mutual legal assistance requests. That was the case more than 10 years ago before the existence of Eurojust; that is the omnibus approach, where you go very slowly, step by step. Then you have the high-speed train approach, where you put everybody around a table during a co-ordination effort, where you offer a forum, with interpretation and translation, where you ensure that during one day everybody who is a player has the same, equal image of the criminal network and its activities. Then all together, with all the elements in your hands, you start to establish a strategy. Where is the majority of the evidence gathered? Where can we secure the best evidence? How can we translate the information gathered around the table into tangible, concrete evidence and then decide on a target date of an action? Even on top of this, Eurojust is offering an operational coordination centre, which is a possibility in real time for the involved national desks to be in direct contact with the judicial and police authorities of the Member States involved in the action. Very often, 200, 300 or 400 policemen are all working on the spot during the target day and we from Eurojust are monitoring the actions taken on the spot. This is the highspeed train approach, where you see that you reach by this action a sharp, shocking effect

6 5 among the criminals. This is certainly not reached in a bilateral case the omnibus approach where it is very lengthy. Another very good example is the European Arrest Warrant in terrorism-related matters. If there is one priority in the EU that is undeniable, it is terrorism. We had the dramatic bombings in London on 21 July One of the targets escaped from the United Kingdom, via France, taking the Eurostar. He landed in Italy, where he was arrested in a minimum of time and, via a European Arrest Warrant, surrendered in less than a few weeks. He was sentenced a short while afterwards to a sentence of 40 years imprisonment. Can I make a comparison with another terrorism-related case? Of course I can in 1995, Rachid Ramda. It took more than 10 years, from November 1995 till December 2005, to get him from the United Kingdom to France for terrorism-related activity. This is the difference between making use of mutual recognition-based instruments, mutual trust, mutual respect, and of using the old mechanisms of MLA Mutual Legal Assistance based on the 1957 and 1959 Conventions. We offer a service and it is up to the customer to make their choice. I know what kind of choice I would make personally. Q181 Baroness O Loan: I have a very brief supplementary, Lord Chairman. Do you know on how many occasions the UK has been involved in these Joint Investigation Teams over the past, whatever time frame you can put on it? If you could put any figures at all, it would be very useful. Michèle Coninsx: We have figures for all the years, and in relation to Joint Investigation Teams for the last two years we had, in total 78 Joint Investigation Teams. In fact, the UK showed the highest level of involvement in this legal instrument, participating in 25 of these Joint Investigation Teams registered at Eurojust which was 32% of all the Joint Investigation Teams and it comes at the top of the list of Member States having made use of the Joint Investigation Teams. We have really very precise figures.

7 6 Baroness O Loan: That is very helpful. Thank you very much. The Chairman: If it is possible I am not sure, but I do not recall whether we have had those figures if they are available in the public domain, it would be helpful if perhaps you could let us have those figures. Michèle Coninsx: I don t think there is any secret about them, and we have never been not transparent; so we can certainly share these figures directly with you. The Chairman: I am sure it will be very much appreciated. Michèle Coninsx: They will appear in the activity report on our activities of That report will see daylight at the end of April and will be presented to the European Parliament orally in June, but there is no secret about these figures. The Chairman: Bearing in mind the timetable that we have for producing this, we would be grateful if you were able to let us have those figures because, if we wait for your report, we will have published our own report by then. Michèle Coninsx: The figures are very relevant and show you very clearly how the UK makes use of all the mutual recognition instruments, the co-ordination meetings and how many cases were launched from the UK and towards the UK within Eurojust. The Chairman: Thank you very much. May I ask colleagues to be quite brief with their questions because we do need to catch up slightly? Q182 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I wonder if we could stand the previous question on its head and ask you because you have given us a very cogent answer of the benefits to the UK from the operation of Eurojust what would be the implications for Eurojust if the UK exercised the opt-out and did not ask to rejoin? Michèle Coninsx: If there is a criminal network where five countries are involved, including the UK, because targets were active in the territory of the UK, we might be able to have a co-ordination meeting easily with all the four EU Member States representatives, but we

8 7 should ask for representation from the UK as if the UK were to be a third state. That is, of course, possible but not that easy, not that simple, and it would certainly have an impact on the effectiveness in going after the criminal network in a short time for sure. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: In the same line of questioning, could you characterise how you think it would affect the evolution of Eurojust if the UK was not an active participant in it, not just on the practical ground, which you have answered, but in the emerging culture of an organisation that is developing all the time? Michèle Coninsx: Indeed. Eurojust has been developing and has evolved since its outset. It is a sum of more than 27 Member States. It is much more than this. Through our annual report, we make a sort of overview of all the issues which show very clearly what is hampering good judicial co-operation and what the solution could be in order to solve practical problems in judicial co-ordination. In that sense, we impact, directly or indirectly, criminal policy at EU level on how to fight organised crime and terrorism effectively. If the UK is not present any longer, the impact of the UK on that criminal policy will be quite reduced. We can also be asked by the institutions to give our advice from a practical point of view on new instruments. If the UK is not part of that group, it might impact on the correctness or completeness of our advice, of course. There are lots of examples. I just gave you an example of the co-ordination meeting. But, as to practical examples, by far the most important one is that, in 2007, we had in Italy an instructing judge who was involved in a financing of terrorism case. He had targets in his file spread over four countries Romania, France, the UK and Portugal. In fact, the case started as, shall we say, a normal case cigarette smuggling, trafficking in human beings, forgery of identity cards and passports but during his work the judge found out that a whole ring, a network, was involved in the financing of terrorism and that money retrieved from the

9 8 criminal activity was being sent through the Maghreb and from there to an al-qaeda network in other regions. At a certain moment, he asked Eurojust to be involved in the co-ordinated execution of a European Arrest Warrant against the targets in those four different countries. It took us at Eurojust five days to go through all the European Arrest Warrants to see if the format met with all the conditions, if everything was legally okay and correct. The instructing judge thought that we could manage in one day on 30 October. It was only possible five days later, on 5 November 2007, by pulling all the efforts together and by also including the UK in that exercise. What would have happened if the targets in the UK had been out of the game? We would concentrate on the leaders of a terrorist network in only three countries and miss an opportunity to be as effective in the fourth country. We would lose in any case but especially in the effect of our effort. We would have been co-ordinating and would have done our job, but we would have missed one segment of that terrorist network. That is the most important impact of not being part of this exercise, but, of course, you have the policy matters and the influencing of the legal decision making, which is also, I think, a vital part that you might be missing in the future. Q183 Lord Rowlands: Lord Justice Thomas, one of the most senior extradition judges in Britain, in evidence he gave to the Scott Baker inquiry into the whole process of the European Arrest Warrant and the issues that you are describing, said this: One of the problems with the way in which a lot of European criminal justice legislation has emerged is that it presupposes a kind of mutual confidence and common standards that actually don t exist. You are saying that Eurojust s experience contradicts that observation. Michèle Coninsx: Are you referring back to Question 4? Is that correct? Lord Rowlands: It was evidence given to the Scott Baker inquiry into the European Arrest Warrant.

10 9 The Chairman: It was not specifically Question 4, no. Lord Justice Scott Baker conducted an inquiry into extradition. Michèle Coninsx: Extradition. The Chairman: It was extradition generally and our arrangements with America, and also the European Arrest Warrant. It was in the context of evidence to that inquiry that the statement was made that Lord Rowlands has just read. Lord Rowlands: He made this general statement. Baroness O Loan: I think you should read the statement again. Lord Rowlands: I will read it again: One of the problems with the way in which a lot of European criminal justice legislation has emerged is that it presupposes a kind of mutual confidence and common standards that actually don t exist. Michèle Coninsx: The European Arrest Warrant was one of the effects of the 9/11 attacks. In 2002, the framework decision of 13 June was being launched, and with that I come back to what one of the spokesmen of the Crown Prosecution Service told the House of Commons in He said that the impact of the European Arrest Warrant was greatly simplifying and speeding up extradition within the EU since its introduction. It is the most effective mutual recognition tool introduced. I am not saying this; a spokesman of the CPS the Crown Prosecution Service is saying this. I gave you the example of Hussain Osman s surrender and Rachid Ramda s extradition. It is true that there are 30 different legal systems and 23 different languages in the EU, but, from a practical point of view, the European Arrest Warrant is an absolute success. It is speeding up, accelerating surrender and is done in a very clear and transparent way. Going back to the figures of Eurojust, I think those are quite revealing. If there was not trust, there would not be such a huge use made of the European Arrest Warrant. I see that, for the UK only, there were 35 cases concerning the execution of European Arrest Warrants;

11 10 and I am always talking about figures from the same years The UK was requested in the execution of European Arrest Warrants in 62 cases. If you make a top-10 list in Eurojust, the UK came in fourth for being requested to execute European Arrest Warrants and was second nearly in the lead as a requested country in European Arrest Warrants. There were two so-called topics addressed to Eurojust one by the High Court of England and Wales to indicate whether, since the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant, there had been any refusals to surrender on the basis that the Ministry of Justice is not a judicial authority. At that moment, we launched a questionnaire to all the remaining 26 countries to see if that was the case in all the other countries, and we had an answer in a minimum of time. We had another questionnaire topic, as we call them, launched in relation to another request coming from the United Kingdom. This is quite revealing, because all the other countries had not made use of Eurojust in verifying the law and the practice in relation to European Arrest Warrants. On top of this, in two cases in the last year in conflicting EAWs, Eurojust was being requested by the UK to give its opinion; and there were only five cases last year. That means that the UK is obviously making use of European Arrest Warrants to quite a good extent. Q184 Lord Avebury: Is that an increasing trend? Could you say anything about the direction in which it is going? Is the number of requests increasing from year to year? You have given us the figures for Can you say anything about the trends of these cases? Michèle Coninsx: If you look at the figures of Eurojust as a whole, we see that in the beginning, 2002, we had approximately 200 cases. Last year we had 1,441 cases and this year 2012 I am referring back 1,533. So it is steadily increasing. What is most important is that you also see that trend pursued in the co-ordination meetings. Only last year we had an increase of 40% of co-ordination meetings. So that means more and more Member States,

12 11 based on trust and confidence, are asking for our support, and that means all the support that may be delivered by Eurojust, be it in the co-ordination meetings, the facilitation of mutual assistance requests or in the execution of European Arrest Warrants and the settingup of JITs. Also for the Joint Investigation Teams do we see that trend. Again, I don t know all these figures by heart, but, especially in relation to the funding of JITs, three years ago there were 10 requests for the funding of JITs. There was an increase to 34 in 2010 and last year there were 62. So you see there is an increase. The trend is constantly increasing, and we always say it is quite difficult for us to promote the tasks to be performed and the services offered Lord Hannay of Chiswick: That is funding from the European budget. Michèle Coninsx: Since a few years we have a JIT funding project. We are funding the JITs at different levels, sponsoring the JITs in relation to hotels accommodation costs travel costs, interpretation and translation costs. These seemed to be in earlier days the things that hampered the setting-up of Joint Investigation Teams. It is not only the JIT funding but also the expertise and experience that goes with it that is increasing. Since a few years, we are hosting the secretariat to the JIT expert network. Also, for a few years we have been hosting jointly with Europol the yearly JIT expert meeting re-uniting all the national experts at police and judicial level dealing with JITs. We also have established a JIT manual where we describe the laws and the practice in relation to JITs, and this gradually is leading to more know-how, more expertise and better practice. It is vital. When an instrument or a tool is not known, it is not being used not being overused and now we see gradually that, because of the practice and the service rendered by Eurojust, we attract more and more requests for the setting-up of JITs. Q185 Viscount Bridgeman: I hope this is not coming too early in your presentation, but we heard yesterday that Europol 2, if that is in place on a very tight timetable, could have the

13 12 effect of taking Europol out of the opt-out regime, too. Does the same facility exist for Eurojust? Michèle Coninsx: Could you please repeat the question? Viscount Bridgeman: As I understand it and Lord Hannay may be able to help on this if the new version of Europol is produced in time for November 2014, it could have the effect, because it is taking the thing out of the pre regime, of taking it out of the opt-out considerations. The Chairman: We would have the ordinary opt-in/opt-out decision to make Michèle Coninsx: Yes. The Chairman: given the existing arrangement, and if it came into force it would replace it? Q186 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I think the question is whether a post-lisbon Regulation for Eurojust which, we understand, it is the Commission s intention to produce sometime perhaps towards the end of this year would, of course, create a similar parallel situation. If the British Government were to decide to opt in to that new Regulation, then Eurojust would drop out of the list of pre-lisbon opt-outs. It would be helpful if you could say what your expectation is about the Commission s intentions and the timetable. Michèle Coninsx: I would like to have a crystal ball and know what the Commission s proposals will be. As things stand right now, we have been informed that there will be two proposals for the two different Regulations, and that refers back directly to Articles 85 and 86 of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 85 refers to Eurojust and the reinforcing of Eurojust in its fight against trans-border organised crime. Article 86 concentrates on the European public prosecutor s office. As things stand at the moment, we have been informed that there will be two proposals for those two separate articles.

14 13 Then, for the UK, we have two possibilities Protocols 36 and 21. It is extremely complex, but I read the papers on several occasions and think I got the message clearly, somewhere, somehow, that, if you opt out, you can opt in in relation to the Council Decision on Eurojust, as it stands so far nothing to worry about. But then, if you do not opt in to that Council Decision, there is another possibility, another opportunity, and that is to opt in in the new proposal for the new Regulation on Eurojust, referring back to Article 85. But then it is all about timing. We do not know what will be proposed. We will not know what will be the effect of the co-decision, the role of the Council and the European Parliament, and when that end result will be reached. The timing here is essential because you have time between June 2014 and 1 December 2014, and there might be a chance that you fall out of the basket, so to speak, and that is a risk which I think is realistic. The Chairman: Lord Sharkey, I think maybe your questions have been covered, have they? Lord Sharkey: I think they have. Madame Coninsx has said that the UK s use of Eurojust is significant and that we use it intensively. Michèle Coninsx: It is true. The Chairman: Baroness O Loan, perhaps you can pick up on the European public prosecutor point. Q187 Baroness O Loan: Yes. Again, maybe this is something that you cannot say too much on, but we wondered about the future development of Eurojust and the relationship between that and the proposed establishment of the European public prosecutor. If the UK declines to participate in the European public prosecutor, will that affect its membership of Eurojust in any way, assuming that it is up to date in Eurojust? Michèle Coninsx: Again, it is difficult, as things stand at the moment, to have a clear view of what will be the further developments and the future of Eurojust as such. As things stand at the moment, Eurojust and the EPP will be two separate things, hence also the envisaged

15 14 projections of the Commission to come to the fore with two different proposals on the two different articles one on the reinforcement of Eurojust and the other on the establishment of the EPPO, the European public prosecutor s office from Eurojust. As things stand at the moment and as we have been informed, it seems to be that the EPPO will concentrate on the Union s thought on the so-called PIF offences the protection of financial interests of the European Union. That means that Eurojust will continue to play its role in the 95% of the other crimes of the rest of the organised and serious crime matters and terrorism. The scope of the EPPO is different. Eurojust is concentrating on co-ordination and co-operation, support of Member States in a horizontal way, and the EPPO will really in a more vertical way, be dealing with PIF related investigations and prosecutions and bringing to justice, which is a different thing. There might be a link between those two things but we do not have any idea of what the model envisaged by the Commission will be. Of course, we have our own reflection work done at Eurojust from a practical point of view. We take cases, and we go along the different models and see how the best synergies can be put in place between all the actors, the Member States the most important actors, and all of Europol and Eurojust. But for the moment, I have no idea how it will impact the UK if it opts out. The Chairman: I hope colleagues might agree, Viscount Bridgeman particularly, but can I ask that Lord Rowlands put his question and the question that you were going to ask because they are linked, so can we put them together? Viscount Bridgeman: They are rather more straightforward. Q188 Lord Rowlands: If the United Kingdom opt out and then seek to opt back in to Eurojust, the Treaty appears to provide that there is an obligation by the Commission to be as positive as possible in its response as long as and there is a proviso the application is coherent. If one was creating a coherent application to allow opting back in to Eurojust,

16 15 what other PCJ measures would be attached to that? What other measures would make up a coherent package, as it were? In other words, how many other measures are connected with Eurojust? Michèle Coninsx: I think I have already mentioned that the European Arrest Warrant is part of our daily judicial co-operation activity. Lord Rowlands: That is one, yes. Michèle Coninsx: Then there are Joint Investigation Teams. Lord Rowlands: That is two. Europol? Michèle Coninsx: Equally important as the co-operation with Europol and the Member States would be the fact that we are now associated to focal points, and the Analytical Work Files of Europol. This association for the UK will not be the same any longer. It will have an effect on everything, for sure. You touch on a piece of the puzzle and you mix up all the pieces of the puzzle. Lord Rowlands: Yes, but you would not say all the 133 measures are attached, would you? Michèle Coninsx: The 133 measures are a lot, but these are the basic ones. There are lots of other measures we are involved with, like the freezing order, the transfer of criminal proceedings, the asset recovery and the controlled deliveries. These are other aspects of our lives and, of course, these also will be affected. Lord Rowlands: Interconnected. Michèle Coninsx: Of course. Q189 Lord Avebury: Supposing that we have opted out and that we have applied to opt back in to Eurojust, and then a new proposal is tabled on Eurojust at some point down the line, would that abort the negotiations that we were in the process of conducting on opting back in to the original proposal? We would be starting again from scratch, as it were, and coming back in to Eurojust, and there would be no backwash from the fact that we had

17 16 opted out of Eurojust that would inhibit the consideration of our application to rejoin a new proposal on Eurojust. Michèle Coninsx: It is difficult for me to answer that question at the moment because we have at Eurojust Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I think that question is better put to the two Director Generals of the Commission, who are the people who basically are preparing the proposals and who, I think, will be able to give an answer. Michèle Coninsx: They are preparing the proposals and monitoring the timing. It is all about the timing of that as well, and it is even difficult for us to evaluate or assess the impact that it will have. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: But there is, I think, a distinction perhaps you can confirm that, if the British Government opted in to a new Commission proposal for Eurojust mark 2, let us say, within the three-month period, that is an unconditional right of the British Government to opt in. They will then be party to the negotiations and to the decision on it and it will not require the say-so of any other European institution. Whereas if the British Government ask to rejoin the present Eurojust, it would have to be adjudged by the Commission on the grounds of coherence and so on. I think that is right, is it not? Michèle Coninsx: Yes. That is, from my recollection, right, indeed, yes. The Chairman: Lord Avebury, we are running rather short of time. I think our witness has expressed fairly clear views about the European Arrest Warrant. Do you mind if we pass on to Lord Stoneham for the moment? Q190 Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Assuming the opt-out is exercised, what is your view on the feasibility of any alternative arrangements for the UK s continuing involvement with Eurojust? What we are particularly interested in is what happens at the moment with

18 17 countries like Norway and Switzerland; what sort of facilities do they have with you and how limited is it compared with the full members of Eurojust? Michèle Coninsx: If you are a full member of Eurojust, you are in the premises of Eurojust and you benefit from all the services that I have been mentioning. Going to the legal basis for the UK once opted out of the Council Decision of Eurojust as such, there is no legal basis foreseen for a country which is within the EU and which cannot, in that sense, be considered as a third state. So what we have in our Council Decision in Article 26 as a possibility is to conclude judicial co-operation agreements with real third states. We have examples in the acts of Eurojust. We have concluded different judicial co-operation agreements with the United States, Norway, Croatia, Switzerland, with FYROM, and we have just concluded though not signed yet with Liechtenstein. It is an ongoing process. Now we will forward a tri-judicial co-operation agreement, fully-fledged, so to speak, where we also have a liaison magistrate or prosecutor based permanently at Eurojust. As a consequence of the conclusion of the judicial co-operation agreement, we have foreseen and generally accept that the liaison prosecutor can occupy the office space and make use of the telecommunication services and that Eurojust might be asking for reimbursement of the costs in that sense. That is roughly it. They may be making use of those kinds of facilities, and that is the case for the Croatian, American and the Norwegian prosecutor. Once you have concluded a judicial co-operation agreement, it facilitates the exchange of personal-related data but you are not considered as being part of the Eurojust national delegations and are not being considered as such. So I think the first step is to see what the right legal basis is to conclude these kinds of judicial co-operation agreements, as we do with third states on the basis of Article 26. I must be honest, I do not know the right answer just now. If it is possible to conclude judicial agreements, we have the experience, and in that sense you can make use of some office

19 18 space and the telecommunications system. You are not to exchange personal data with the other EU Member States, but that is roughly it. The Chairman: Sadly, we must bring this to a close very shortly, but, Baroness O Loan, I think you have a brief question arising out of this. Q191 Baroness O Loan: On a judicial co-operation agreement, do you run Joint Investigation Teams? Michèle Coninsx: Yes. Baroness O Loan: If we have a judicial co-operation agreement and Joint Investigation Teams, what do we not have access to? Michèle Coninsx: The funding, for instance Baroness O Loan: The funding for the judicial Michèle Coninsx: would not be possible. Baroness O Loan: In a wider context, is everything else available by virtue of this agreement all the things that you were describing to us that your organisation provides? Michèle Coninsx: It would be rather complicated. If you don t have the European Arrest Warrant, you should have the extradition, for instance, based on the Convention of But, if you go through the EAW Framework Decision, the Convention of 1957 is no longer applicable. So what is your legal basis? It is quite difficult to say in one phrase, It will be that effect. It will have a multitude of effects. What I can say is that it would make the fight against organised crime extremely complex and quite inefficient, not only for the UK but also for the rest of the European Union, and it will have an impact on security in the UK, for sure. The Chairman: Thank you very much. That is probably an opportune moment at which to bring the session to a close. Can I thank Madame Coninsx and indeed Ms Kennah for coming to our meeting? Thank you very much indeed, Madame Coninsx, for your very full answers. I

20 19 am sorry that we do not have more time to pursue some of these issues, but if you could let us have the figures in advance of the publication of your report so that we can refer to them if we wish to in our own report and they can then form part of the evidence, that would be very helpful. Once again, thank you so much for your help, which has been very valuable.