52001DC0628

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - BIANNUAL UPDATE OF THE SCOREBOARD TO REVIEW PROGRESS ON THE CREATION OF AN AREA OF "FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE" IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (SECOND HALF OF 2001)

PREFACE

This edition of the Scoreboard itself follows the same format as its three previous editions. It presents in detail the many objectives and deadlines set by Tampere; the instruments needed to achieve them; the responsibilities attributed in each case by Tampere to get the process started, progressed and completed; and where the next move must come from if the momentum created by Tampere is to be maintained. On this occasion, a summary listing the main achievements since Tampere has been added in order to help the reader to interpret the tabular presentation.

This immediately pre-Laeken edition of the "Scoreboard", however, also provides the occasion to extend the analysis beyond the purely mechanical measuring of progress in terms of the tabling and adoption (or non-adoption) of the various instruments needed. It therefore seeks also to provide the Commission's own evaluation of progress as a contribution to the European Council's debate.

CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Executive Summary

2. A common EU asylum and migration policy

2.1. Partnership with countries of origin

2.2. A common European asylum system

2.3. Fair treatment of third-country nationals

2.4. Management of migration flows

3. A Genuine European Area of Justice

3.1. Better access to justice in Europe

3.2. Mutual recognition of judicial decisions

3.3. Greater convergence in civil law

4. Union-wide Fight against Crime

4.1. Preventing crime at the level of the Union

4.2. Stepping up cooperation in the fight against crime

4.3. Fight against certain forms of crime

4.4. Special action against money laundering

5. Issues related to internal and external borders and visa policy, Implementation of Art. 62 EC and converting the Schengen Acquis

6. Citizenship of the Union

7. Cooperation Against Drugs

8. Stronger External Action

9. Other current initiatives

Introduction

The Laeken mid-term Review

The Presidency's conclusions from the Tampere European Council of 15-16 October 1999 put on record, in paragraph 3 of its introductory page, the clearly stated wish of Heads of State and Government that their far reaching objectives for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice should be achieved in accordance with the ambitious timetable fixed by the Amsterdam Treaty, as further refined at Tampere. They also made clear their determination to be kept personally informed on the extent and pace at which their agreed programme was being implemented. To this end, they envisaged a double mechanism:

* a "Scoreboard", to be produced at regular intervals by the Commission, monitoring progress in the adoption and implementation of the impressive range of measures needed to meet the targets set by the Treaty and the European Council ;

* a rendez-vous, fixed for December 2001, when Heads of State and Government would hold an in-depth debate to assess the progress achieved.

If ever there was any doubt about this commitment at the highest level, it was forcefully eliminated by the language of the conclusions of the special European Council on 21 September called in response to tragic events of 11 September. Not only did Heads of State of Government on that occasion restate the importance of the Tampere programme and its timetable: they also went so far as to give "instructions" that it should be implemented in its entirety as quickly as possible. The message to the Union's institutions and Member States could not be clearer.

The two mechanisms mentioned above come together in a very concrete way in the preparations for Laeken. The Laeken meeting of the European Council will constitute the rendez-vous envisaged at Tampere: the attached edition of the Commission's "Scoreboard" provides Heads of State and Government with an up-to-date account of the state of progress in implementing the programme which they set for themselves two years ago.

Overall Assessment

The Scoreboard's message to the European Council is generally positive: provided that efforts are maintained and strengthened, the prospects for delivering the Tampere objectives remain good The initiative taken at Tampere has undoubtedly borne fruit and concrete examples of the progress already achieved are given later in this introduction. By devoting a full meeting to the implementation of the key relevant provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty, Heads of State and Government sent out the clear signal that they were determined to pursue a global long-term strategy with well-defined and structured objectives. Since Tampere, all three institutions have worked together, in a Union spirit, with a single goal in mind: the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice.

There is indeed a widespread recognition (both public and political) that the most challenging issues facing our society, such as migration and crime, can only be usefully addressed at the level of the Union rather than by Member States acting alone. In addition, the establishment of networks have led to a new culture of European co-operation at both the political and operational level.

Furthermore, since Tampere, the Union has established itself as a significant player on the international stage in the field of justice and home affairs as a component of the external policies of the Union in general. The Union's response to the events of 11 September 2001 both internally and on the external scene has demonstrated its capacity to take joint action.

Finally, Tampere marked an important moment in the development of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by laying down the mechanisms by which it would be drawn up. By ensuring that these fundamental principles are respected, the Charter proclaimed in December 2000 on the occasion of the Nice European Council, has become an essential component of the area of freedom, security and justice.

Two years after Tampere, it can be said that the questions put by the European Council are clearly on the table in all their detail. As a result of initiatives taken by the Commission and/or Member States, there is no further doubt possible about what is involved if the objectives set by Tampere are to be met Laeken will provide the opportunity, programmed by Heads of State and Governments themselves, to reaffirm that they meant what they said at Tampere, and ringingly confirmed in Brussels on 21 September 2001, so that the necessary sense of urgency will be injected into the execution of their instructions.

Such a message can count on the full support of the Commission.No one would understand if Laeken were to lower the level of ambitions set at Tampere , either in their content or their timetable, as this would suggest an acceptance that the admittedly real difficulties of adjusting national approaches to these sensitive issues imply a need to slow down and/or dilute the common objectives set by the Treaty. On the contrary, anything less than the speeding up of the Tampere milestones would profoundly disappoint public opinion which has consistently called for further achievements in this area.

Taking the key areas in turn:

* Mutual recognition

A major advance since Tampere has been the general acceptance of the concept of the mutual recognition of Court judgements as a practical way of overcoming the deeply embedded differences in Member States' judicial traditions and structures. The principle having been accepted, for both the civil and the penal areas, Member States' willingness to pursue to a successful conclusion the detailed implementation is now being tested.

In the civil area, this principle has already crystallised in two landmark Community instruments: the so-called "Brussels I" and "Brussels II" regulations. These instruments, together with other pieces of legislation already adopted (e.g. regulations on the service of documents and taking of evidence), constitute a solid base towards more advanced degrees of mutual recognition and the long term objective of completely suppressing "exequatur".

In the penal area, a key indicator of the Member States' commitment to this aspect of judicial cooperation will be the extent to which the Council is able to meet the instruction from the European Council to adopt within two months the proposals for a European Arrest Warrant.

* Criminal legislation

As regards criminal law, difficulties have been encountered in the implementation of the Tampere requests relating to common definitions, incriminations and sanctions for several priority areas. The main problems are linked to the level of sanctions. This has not, however, prevented the Council from reaching an agreement on the penalties for counterfeiting the Euro, nor to adopt legal instruments on the liability of smugglers. Another encouraging recent development has been the agreement by the 28 September Justice and Home Affairs Council on the framework decision concerning the crime of trafficking in human beings. The Council's response to the insistence of the 21 September European Council on the swift adoption of the Commission's recent proposal for a common definition of terrorist acts will be an important indicator in this area. It should anyway be hoped that, with that kind of message from the highest level, all the priority areas identified in paragraph 48 of the Tampere conclusions (e.g. in the area of fight against drugs trafficking, sexual exploitation of children and high tech crimes) should benefit from this new momentum which Laeken could usefully confirm.

* Legislation in other areas

More disappointing has been the failure to meet the Tampere deadlines in certain areas involving legislation. The Tampere conclusions unambiguously call for common policies in a number of clearly identified areas. In making such a call, Heads of State and Government were certainly aware that common policies cannot be constructed without a minimum of adjustment of national policies. Yet the thrust of discussion in the Council on a number of individual legislative proposals reveals a continuing determination by Member States to ensure that any common policies should involve the least possible adjustment to each one's existing national approaches. Such an attitude is understandable up to a point and for a limited time, but unworkable in practice, especially when tight deadlines have been set. The longer it takes to agree on a common policy, the greater the danger of one or other Member State constructing its own policy with mainly national considerations in mind and without reference to European context in which it will be set. If this happens, the more people will question the added value of European-wide policies in areas which feature so high on their list of daily concerns.

* Immigration and asylum

The areas of immigration and asylum provide a particular example of this phenomenon. The decision taken at Amsterdam to move these subjects from the third to the first "pillar" of the Treaty was in part intended to enable them to benefit from the more dynamic Community decision-making process, including its full involvement of the European Parliament and the Court of Justice. Furthermore, the Tampere conclusions listed very precisely the measures which were considered essential for the purposes of building up the common policies in these related areas. The necessary proposals, some of them representing a reformatting in Amsterdam language of elements already under discussion for some time under the Maastricht rules, have been tabled by the Commission and set in the framework of a general approach spelled out in two communications to the Council and Parliament.

It would be satisfying to be able to report to the European Council that the "pillar switch" has led to a greater sense of urgency and flexibility than was the case before the Amsterdam Treaty came into force, particularly in the light of the clear deadlines set at the highest level. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case. To be sure, some positive developments can be reported as for instance the creation of the European Refugee Fund, the adoption of the directive on Temporary Protection and the setting up of the Eurodac system. Nevertheless, discussions in the Council on several other draft proposals, reveal the familiar phenomenon of one or more Member States being more than reluctant to contemplate adjusting their national policy to enable agreement to be reached on a common policy is still reminiscent of pre-Amsterdam days. In an area where nearly all decisions are still taken by unanimity, there is an absence of effective pressure to make essential concessions. This is something on which, if the necessary political will does not filter down to the detailed negotiations, the Commission invites Heads of State and Government to reflect carefully on whether they are taking full advantage of the possibilities of the existing Treaties; on how they will use the improvements offered by Nice; and what future institutional and decision-making changes may be needed in the future Treaty including possible moves away from the unanimity rule in blocked areas.

* Existing and new bodies/structures

Satisfaction can be drawn from the momentum generated in implementing the European Council's wish to see improvements to or the creation of a number of cooperation structures they singled for mention at Tampere. Although at this stage of their existence, these various structures differ considerably in the state of their development, their basis within the Treaty and the clarity of their respective mandates, all of them either already have or can look forward to playing the role envisaged for them at Tampere. Attention must continue to be directed towards building up an effective, Treaty-based capacity for each of these different bodies. No less important, however, will be the task of ensuring coordination between them, so that each has a clearly defined role, thus ensuring their complementarity and avoiding any risk of duplication or contradiction of effort. Their response, even in these early days of the existence of some of them, to the events of 11 September, will already provide a first test of this necessary coordination. The bodies concerned are:

§ EUROPOL: Both Amsterdam and Tampere foresee an enhanced role and capacity for Europol. This was forcefully reiterated at the European Council's special meeting on 21 September, which emphasised, inter alia, the need for Europol to be provided rapidly and systematically with the information it needs on terrorism and to be reinforced with specialists on anti-terrorism.

§ EUROJUST: Eurojust has got off to an impressively quick start with the early establishment of its provisional formation. It should move into its second, and more complete, phase in 2002.

§ The Task Force of Chiefs of Police: This has now met once in each Presidency since Tampere. Its operational role and its relationship with Europol still needs to be defined, but the first ground work has been laid.

§ The European Police College: Initial discussions have confirmed the enthusiasm of the practitioners themselves, even if there remain some (surmountable) arguments of a budgetary and institutional nature, including the question of the creation of its Secretariat.

To these can be added:

§ The 20 September Justice and Home Affairs Council's call for regular meetings of heads of Member States' Security and Intelligence Services;

§ A possible new structure related to border management, in particular to provide for shared training, exchanges and coordination of border controls between the services concerned in Member States, perhaps with a view to the establishment, in the longer term, of a common border control institution.

* External dimension, including enlargement

The coincidence of the Tampere timetable and that of the enlargement process means that the two are intrinsically linked. In putting in place the necessary legislative and cooperation measures foreseen by Tampere, the Union is in effect creating a new and constantly evolving acquis with potentially significant consequences for the candidate countries. They will have to work hard to understand and be ready for these changes. As the Union covers new ground, new challenges will inevitably arise. New concepts, such as a mutual recognition, may require special attention in the context of enlargement.

International developments since Tampere have demonstrated the wisdom of the European Council's call for strengthening the Union's external action on Justice and Home Affairs. This has been particularly highlighted by the events of 11 September which have not only mobilised the Transatlantic Dialogue but have also clearly demonstrated the need to develop the Union's relationship with a range of other third countries.

Key messages

The Commission's assessment for Laeken of progress since Tampere can be summarised as follows:

* the process launched by Tampere has been globally positive, leading to wide understanding of and support for the programme set out there by the European Council;

* the ultimate success of the Tampere project will depend on the level of continuing public support which it enjoys; this in turn requires that it be pursued with a maximum degree of visibility and transparency so that citizens can identify with it as a response to their daily concerns;

* in some areas, concrete advances can be pointed to, notably the general willingness in principle of Member States to adopt a mutual recognition approach in order to overcome the obvious difficulties of full harmonisation;

* the move of certain subjects, especially immigration and asylum, to the Community pillar of the Treaty has not, however, produced the hoped results for increase in flexibility and urgency. This reluctance to make progress should be surmountable by the injection of a major new dose of political will;

( the new bodies envisaged by Tampere for improving cooperation (EUROJUST; thePolice Chiefs Task Force; the European Police College) are to varying degrees on the way to being set up. These successes should be followed up by examining the possibility of setting up a comparable new body to manage training and exchanges for those (including in the candidate countries) involved in the management of the external frontier. By contrast, the progress towards enabling EUROPOL to play the enhanced role envisaged for it by Amsterdam and Tampere has been slow, even if it can be hoped that the 11 September events may speed up the necessary decisions;

* sight must not be lost of the read-across between the implementation of Tampere and the enlargement process. On the one hand, there is every advantage in having the area of freedom, security and justice as completely in place as possible in time for enlargement: on the other, the constantly evolving acquis will introduce potentially challenging new elements to which the candidate countries will have to adjust at the same time as the enlargement negotiations proceed;

* above all, the Laeken European Council will need both to maintain and strengthen the momentum of Tampere, and also to make the link with its separate debate on the future of Europe so that the next Intergovernmental Conference can introduce any necessary institutional and decision-making changes to effectively build the area of freedom, security and justice.

BIANNUAL UPDATE OF THE SCOREBOARD TO REVIEW PROGRESS ON THE CREATION OF AN AREA OF "FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE" IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (SECOND HALF OF 2001)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This section provides a summary listing of the main achievements since Tampere, as set out in detail in the tables which follow.

A common European policy on asylum and migration

In the asylum field, the Council has now received all the legislative proposals necessary to implement the first phase, covering the establishment of minimum standards for asylum procedures and reception conditions for applicants, criteria for determining which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application, the definition of what is meant by "refugee" and the alignment of additional forms of protection.

In November 2000 the Commission presented a communication in which it put forward objectives, options and a methodology for the transition to the second phase of the common European policy on asylum, characterised by the introduction of a common procedure and uniform status.

The Council paved the way for Community management of international protection when, on the basis of proposals from the Commission, it adopted: the European Refugee Fund, which was operative in 2000 and 2001, the EURODAC system, which is currently being developed and, lastly, the Directive on temporary protection, which provides the Community and its Member States with a common framework in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons.

As regards immigration, the Commission set out its proposed method of contributing to the formulation of a common policy in its November 2000 communication. This approach entails, on the one hand, creating a legislative framework laying down the conditions of entry and residence for third-country nationals and, on the other, an open coordination mechanism designed to promote the gradual convergence of the Member States' policies. The necessary legislative proposals on family reunification, the rights of third-country nationals who are long-term residents and admission for employment purposes have been submitted to the Council. The Council has already adopted a package of anti-discrimination measures proposed by the Commission and ensured that the struggle against social exclusion has been placed on the European social agenda.

The struggle against illegal immigration is another important aspect of a common policy on the management of migratory flows. Various advances have been made in terms of operational cooperation, and the first legislative instruments have been adopted to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence and to ensure the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions.

Other initiatives designed to consolidate the foundations of this common policy are in the pipeline, especially as regards improving knowledge of the migration phenomenon, through the preparation of a new action plan on statistics and the creation of a (virtual) migration observatory, and administrative cooperation, which should be stepped up as part of the new ARGO programme.

Lastly, cooperation with third countries of origin and transit has continued, in particular through the gradual integration of migration and asylum questions into the political dialogue and cooperation with non-member countries, for instance with ASEM, the Mediterranean (Barcelona Process and MEDA Programme), China, the western Balkans and certain countries for which action plans have been established on the initiative of the High Level Group on Immigration and Asylum. The creation of a new financial instrument by the budgetary authority should help, together with the actions of the Member States, to facilitate this process.

A genuine European area of justice

In civil and commercial matters, a Civil European Judicial network has been set up whose purpose is to ensure ongoing exchanges of information between national authorities. A European extra-judicial network has also been established to provide support to consumers involved in disputes. As regards the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in civil matters, a programme has been adopted which is based on the Brussels I and II Regulations (these Regulations deal with the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and in family law matters respectively); it is designed, in the long term, to abolish the "exequatur" requirement for enforcing decisions in civil and commercial matters in another Member State. This programme, which focuses on judicial decisions, is to be extended to include the recognition of certain administrative procedures and documents which, in addition to judicial procedures themselves, currently pose problems for the citizens concerned.

A European Judicial Network has also been established in the criminal-law field. In line with the commitments entered into at Tampere, the Council and the Commission have adopted a programme of measures to put the principle of mutual recognition into practice in respect of criminal-law decisions. Mutual recognition must be sought in all phases of the criminal-law procedure whether prior to, during or after the sentence ruling. As part of its contribution to the priority measures in this field, the Commission has presented a proposal for a Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States. The Extraordinary European Council of 21 September 2001 endorsed the creation of a European arrest warrant allowing wanted persons to be handed direct from one judicial authority to another, which will replace the current extradition system between Member States.

As regards the protection of victims, a framework decision has been adopted by the Council. The Commission has also launched public consultations via publication of a Green Paper concerning victim compensation.

Union-wide fight against crime

An important aspect of the Tampere action plan concerns the alignment of criminal law in a number of priority sectors, for each of which the establishment of common definitions, charges and penalties is required. The Council has adopted the initiatives presented by France on smuggling of migrants (directive and framework decision). The Council meeting of 27 and 28 September also reached agreement in principle on the Commission's proposal for a framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings. Work is continuing in the Council on the proposal for a framework decision to combat the sexual exploitation of children and child pornograph 1y] and cybercrime. The Commission has also put forward a proposal for a framework decision on the fight against terrorism and will present a proposal on racism and xenophobia. The decisions necessary to ensure effective protection of the euro, particularly against counterfeiting, are currently being finalised.

[1]

The Council has decided to set up a crime prevention network. Its action programme incorporates the priority areas for crime prevention identified at Tampere: juvenile delinquency, urban crime and drug-related crime.

As regards cooperation on criminal law enforcement, the decision to set up the definitive Eurojust unit is expected by the end of 2001. Its establishment will be an important part of ensuring proper coordination between the national prosecuting authorities and providing assistance in the investigation of cases of organised crime. Regarding customs cooperation, the ratification process for the CIS and Naples II conventions is still under way.

With regard to police cooperation, a joint Belgo-Swedish proposal was put forward on extending Europol's powers to include all types of crime. An initiative was also presented in September 2001 by four Member States on the setting-up of joint investigation teams. This type of cooperation has had a much higher profile since the Extraordinary European Council of 21 September on terrorism. In addition, the creation in October 2000 of the Task Force of Police Chiefs will enable operational cooperation between police forces to be improved, while the establishment of the European Police College (CEPOL) will promote police training.

Tampere also called for the development of measures to combat money-laundering to be stepped up significantly in view of their importance in the struggle against organised crime. This is also true of the struggle against terrorism and its funding, as reiterated in the conclusions of the Extraordinary European Council of 21 September. Looking at the fight against financial crime more generally, the October 2001 Council signified its agreement to a Directive modifying the 1991 Directive on preventing the use of the financial system for the purposes of money-laundering that should be formally adopted by the end of the year; furthermore the Member States have signed the draft Protocol to the Convention of May 2000 on mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters, which they have undertaken to ratify by the end of 2002. As regards the protection of the financial interests of the Community, the Member States have still to ratify a variety of Third Pillar legislative instruments. The Commission therefore presented a proposal for a Directive in this field in May 2001. In addition, by the end of 2001, the Commission will present a Green Paper on the protection under criminal law of the financial interests of the Community and the creation of a European Public Prosecutor. Finally, the framework decision on the freezing of assets should be adopted by the end of the year.

At multilateral level, an important milestone was passed when the Member States and the Community signed the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime and its additional protocols.

Questions concerning policy on the Union's internal and external borders and on visas, the implementation of Article 62 of the EC Treaty and the conversion of the Schengen acquis

The Incorporation of the Schengen acquis has had a significant impact on the Union's work. Proposals have been put forward by the Member States and the Commission on certain legislative measures necessary either for the transposition of Schengen into ordinary Community law or for its development. These different proposals are currently being discussed in the Council. The development of common practice, particularly as regards visas and controls at external borders, needs to be taken further.

Citizenship of the Union

The Commission has presented a proposal for a directive designed to launch a comprehensive reform of all existing Community legislation on the right of free movement and residence. These provisions aim to ensure greater transparency and make certain aspects of the current arrangements more flexible.

Cooperation in the fight against drugs

In June 2001 the Commission presented a communication on the implementation of the Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004). With a view to contributing to the delivery of the Action Plan's specific objectives, the Commission has also presented a proposal for a framework decision on minimum rules governing the illegal trade in drugs and penalties.

Stronger external action

The adoption by the Feira European Council in June 2000 of the report prepared by the Council and Commission on external relations in the JHA field enabled a series of priorities and policy objectives to be identified. Negotiations on JHA aspects are ongoing as part of the enlargement process. The Community has also supported the applicant countries via specific projects under the Phare programme, partnership agreements and participation in the JHA programmes. The Stabilisation and Association Agreements between the Union and the countries of the western Balkans all contain a substantial JHA component (e.g. the CARDS Programme) At international level, the Member States and the Community have signed the United Nations Convention on organised crime and the protocols on smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings. These instruments are currently in the process of being ratified. Also under the aegis of the United Nations, the Member States and the Community are planning to sign the protocol against firearms and are taking part in preparatory work for the convention against corruption. The Member States and the Community are also involved in the final phase of work on the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime.

2. A common EU asylum and migration policy

The Tampere priorities

The separate but closely related issues of asylum and migration call for the development of a common EU policy.

2.1. Partnership with countries of origin

The European Union needs a comprehensive approach to migration, addressing political, human rights and development issues in countries and regions of origin and transit. A partnership with the relevant countries will also be a decisive factor for the success of this policy with a view to promoting co-development.

Objective: Assessment of countries and regions of origin and transit in order to formulate specific integrated approaches

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

2.2. A common European asylum system

The aim is to ensure full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non-refoulement.

In the long term, a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for refugees must be established, to be valid throughout the Union.

Secondary movements by asylum seekers between Member States should be limited.

Agreement will be actively sought on a temporary protection regime for displaced persons, on the basis of solidarity among Member States.

Objective: To determine the State responsible for examining an asylum application

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: A fair and efficient asylum procedure

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: Uniform status throughout the Union for those who are granted asylum

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: Adoption of measures for refugees and displaced persons providing an appropriate status to any person in need of international protection

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To ensure a balance of effort between Member States in receiving refugees and displaced persons and bearing the consequences of such intake

>TABLE POSITION>

2.3. Fair treatment of third-country nationals

The conditions for admission and residence of third-country nationals will be approximated, on the basis of a shared assessment of economic and demographic developments within the Union, as well as of the situation in the countries of origin.

An integration policy should aim at granting third-country nationals who reside legally on the territory of Member States (and in particular long-term residents), rights and obligations comparable to those of European Union citizens, as well as enhancing non-discrimination and the fight against racism and xenophobia.

Objective: To fight against all forms of discrimination, especially racism and xenophobia [2]

[2] Measures aimed at enhancing non-discrimination and at fighting racism and xenophobia apply generally to all persons residing in the territory of the European Union; they are particularly relevant with regard to third-country nationals.

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: Approximation of national legislation on the conditions for admission and residence of third-country nationals

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: Approximation of the legal status of third-country nationals

>TABLE POSITION>

2.4. Management of migration flows

Management of migration flows should be improved at every stage through close cooperation with countries of origin and transit.

The fight against illegal immigration will be enhanced by combating the criminal networks involved while securing the rights of victims.

Objective: To improve the exchange of statistics and information on asylum and immigration (this exchange should include statistics as well as information on national legislation and policies)

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To enhance the fight against trafficking in human beings and economic exploitation of migrants

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To assist countries of origin and transit

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To establish a coherent European Union policy on readmission and return

>TABLE POSITION>

3. A Genuine European Area of Justice

The Tampere priorities

The ambition is to give citizens a common sense of justice throughout the Union. Justice must be seen as facilitating the day-to-day life of people and bringing to justice those who threaten the freedom and security of individuals and society. This includes both better access to justice and full judicial cooperation among Member States.

The Tampere Summit called for practical steps to be taken to improve access to justice in Europe and for mechanisms to be put in place to protect victims' rights. It also advocated setting up systems for the mutual recognition of judicial decisions.

3.1. Better access to justice in Europe

A genuine area of justice must ensure that individuals and businesses can approach courts and authorities in any Member State as easily as in their own and not be prevented or discouraged from exercising their rights by the complexity of the legal and administrative systems in the Member States.

Objective: To ensure legal certainty and equal access to justice

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To protect rights to compensation and provide assistance to victims

>TABLE POSITION>

3.2. Mutual recognition of judicial decisions

A genuine area of justice must provide legal certainty to individuals and to economic operators. To that end, judgments and decisions should be respected and enforced throughout the Union.

Enhanced mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate cooperation between authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights. The principle of mutual recognition should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the European Union.

As regards civil matters:

Objective: Enhanced mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments, and the necessary approximation of legislation, to facilitate cooperation between authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights [3]

[3] See also table on "Greater convergence in civil law".

>TABLE POSITION>

As regards criminal matters:

Objective: To make sure criminals have no safe havens

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To ensure that decisions taken in one Member State have effect throughout the Union

>TABLE POSITION>

3.3. Greater convergence in civil law

In order to ensure smooth judicial cooperation and enhance access to law, better compatibility and more convergence between the legal systems must be achieved.

Objective: Eliminate obstacles created by disparities in law and procedures

>TABLE POSITION>

4. Union-wide Fight against Crime

Tampere priorities and strategy for a new millennium

A balanced development of Union-wide measures against all forms of crime, including serious organised and transnational crime, should be achieved while protecting the freedom and legal rights of individuals and economic operators.

In this context, particular attention is drawn to the "European Union Strategy for the beginning of the new Millennium" on prevention and control of organised crime. Some complementary actions, going beyond the Tampere conclusions and called for by the recommendations in this strategy have been introduced in this chapter.

4.1. Preventing crime at the level of the Union

Any efficient policy in the fight against all types of crime, organised or otherwise, must include also preventive measures of a multidisciplinary nature.

Crime prevention aspects must be incorporated into actions and programmes against crime at Union and Member State level.

Cooperation between national prevention organisations should be encouraged and certain priority areas should be identified.

Objective: To prevent crime through reduction of opportunities

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To facilitate cooperation between Member States

>TABLE POSITION>

4.2. Stepping up cooperation in the fight against crime

In a genuine area of justice, criminals must not find ways of exploiting differences in the judicial systems of Members States.

Giving citizens a high level of protection implies greater cooperation between the authorities responsible for applying the law. To this end, maximum benefit should be derived from cooperation between authorities in the Member States when investigating cross-border cases.

The Treaty of Amsterdam, by conferring additional powers on Europol, recognised the latter's essential and central role in facilitating European cooperation in preventing and combating organised crime.

Objective: To coordinate and, where appropriate, centralise proceedings

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To provide mutual assistance to the fullest extent possible

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To protect rights of victims and provide assistance

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To develop operational police cooperation and law enforcement training at EU level

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To enhance customs cooperation in the fight against crime and regarding the use of information technology

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To foster international cooperation in the fight against transnational organised crime

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To reinforce the role of Europol in facilitating European cooperation in preventing and combating crime with the necessary support and resources

>TABLE POSITION>

4.3. Fight against certain forms of crime

With regard to national criminal law, efforts to agree on common definitions, changes and penalties should be focused in the first instance on a limited number of sectors of particular relevance. Agreements on common definitions, charges and penalties regarding serious organised and transnational crime need to be established in order to protect the freedom and legal rights of individual and economic operators.

Objective: To adopt a common approach throughout the EU on cross-border crimes

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To adopt a common approach throughout the EU on cross-border crimes

>TABLE POSITION>

4.4. Special action against money laundering

Money laundering is at the very heart of organised crime. For that reason measures must be taken to root it out wherever it occurs and to ensure that concrete steps are taken to trace, freeze, seize and confiscate the proceeds of crime.

Objective: to deprive criminals of the proceeds of crime

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: to enhance knowledge and the capacity to fight money-laundering activities

>TABLE POSITION>

5. Issues related to internal and external borders and visa policy, Implementation of Art. 62 EC and converting the Schengen Acquis

Objective: to develop a common visa policy

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: Further development of a common policy related to false documents

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: Control at the external borders of the Union

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: To convert and develop the Schengen acquis

>TABLE POSITION>

6. Citizenship of the Union

Objective: To further facilitate the right of citizens to move and reside freely

>TABLE POSITION>

Objective: Information on exercise of rights attached to Union citizenship

>TABLE POSITION>

7. Cooperation Against Drugs

Priorities of the EU drugs strategy

As a collective and individual threat, the drugs problem needs to be addressed in a global, multidisciplinary and integrated manner. The EU drugs strategy for the period 2000-2004 will also be assessed at mid-term and at completion, with the help of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol.

Objective: To implement the EU Drugs Strategy for 2000-04 endorsed by the European Council in Helsinki

>TABLE POSITION>

8. Stronger External Action

Priorities of the European Council meetings in Tampere and Feira

The European Union underlines that all powers and instruments at the disposal of the Union, in particular in external relations, must be used in an integrated and consistent way to build the area of freedom, security and justice. Justice and Home Affairs concerns must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Union policies and activities.

Objective: All the powers and instruments at the disposal of the Union, particularly in external relations, must be used in an integrated and consistent way. Justice and home affairs concerns must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Union policies and activities

>TABLE POSITION>

9. Other current initiatives

>TABLE POSITION>