Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
LIBE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsFloriana Sipala
And I will finish by mentioning innovation and technology. We need to ensure that innovation is fully integrated into our internal security architecture. Criminal networks are moving fast. They are increasingly digital. Law enforcement and judicial authority should keep pace with the changes and innovation.
And, again, let me refer to the division of Europol because not only would we like to reform Europol in order to make it a true criminal information hub, but also we want to strengthen its role as a technological hub. And in this respect, the development of a U Police Cloud will play a very important role, as much as a very important role could be played by joint procurement to ensure that law enforcement authorities have access to the same more advanced capabilities. So a lot to be done via a reform of Europol. Also, a lot of other text to be implemented, and strong action in the international area as well. This is what we would like to put in place with your support and the support of the council to advance in the common will to act against transnational crime and terrorism.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Sipala. And now I give the floor to Missus Songka from DG just for four minutes. Miss Songka, the floor is yours.
Peter Jozsef Csonka
Thank you very much. I will do my best to keep it to four minutes, as Floriana did as well. I mean, you understood by now that there's a lot that remains to be done, but that we already have actually quite a lot of legislation in place, and institutions, bodies, and agencies in the area of justice and of affairs. And that's, since the Treaty of Amsterdam created the third pillar. So, our objective, on the Digi Justice side, was to take stock of this.
Last year, we conducted an exercise called the High Level Forum on the Future of EU criminal law in which, Mister President, you participated and many others in the room. And it came to the realization that EU criminal justice by now is quite solid and well established, but it remains subject to evolution. And this evolution needs to be balanced and needs to be respectful of fundamental rights and needs to take into account the evolution of criminality and technology. So there are a few horizontal priorities which we have identified in the conclusions of the High-Level Forum. I will just mention a few.
One is that we keep a stronger focus on operational priorities, in effective judicial cooperation, and I will come back to this in the context of the EIO. Attention to procedural safeguards, that we keep coherence in the area of substantive criminal law, and the council will help us with the model provisions and the need to assess opportunities and challenges presented by digitalization. And that we have started doing by implementing the 2023 digitalization regulation. And then we also realized that agencies and bodies, in particular Eurojust and the EPPO, need to evolve as well as much as our instruments on mutual recognition, such as the European investigation order. So I will say a word on each.
First, I will start with the EPPO and PIF. You know that the regulation has been in force, and DPP has started operations for five years. We're very proud of the achievements of the EPPO, and I'm happy to say that in the presence of the illustrious Spanish European prosecutor, whom I know well, we are quite happy with the results of the EPPO. The first ever evaluation report about the EPPO and the regulation will come in June this year, and we reckon that it will bring up a few issues. So it is our plan to come with a revision of the EPPO regulation.
The report will come in June. The revision will come together with the Olaf revision, and the PIF report possibly with an amendment of the PIF directive as well. All this in a package. As we know, there's a review being conducted by the European Commission called the Anti Fraud Architecture Review, which we started last year, and that will be concluded by a package of amendments: EPPO, Olaf, and the PIF directive. But also other actors are concerned: Europol and Eurojust.
Let me now come to Eurojust. As you know, this is our hub for judicial cooperation in the European Union. We have published there a report already in July 2023, and we will come with an amendment of the Eurojust regulation. We identified that Eurojust works well, but there are some areas where there's room for improvement. And we will not change fundamentally how Eurojust works, but we think that there are a few objectives that we can improve in terms of making it more efficient and proactive in its operational support for member states, streamlining its governance structure, making Eurojust cooperation with agencies and bodies across the JJ sector such as Europol, but also the VPO more effective, and the same vis a vis third countries.
And I note as well that we will have a discussion quickly about Eurojust and the Lebanon agreement later today. Now about EIO and mutual recognition of investigation orders, just a word to say that we identified, the council did, in fact, in its report, a few shortcomings, and specifically on a missing element, which is hearing suspects, witnesses, and accused persons at the trial stage. So we are planning to bring an amendment of the EIO directive later this year to include this new possibility to hear accused persons and witnesses at the trial stage. There will possibly be a few other amendments as well in the EIO. We also plan to issue a few soft guidance documents in this area, one concerning asset recovery, another on the status of lawyers and their privileges.
And one last word on the CJCM, which is the criminal justice cross-check mechanism. It's a mechanism that we think will help improve cross-checking data between agencies and bodies of the union. And we're planning to bring this informal legislation towards the end of this year, in order to facilitate a cross-border exchange of information and avoid nebiscence cases. And the very last point, victim rights, we are very glad about the final results and outcome of the dialogues on the victim rights directive. We will bring a strategic document at the end of this year to implement this new directive, and it will put emphasis on mutual recognition instruments as well, which will help implement this directive also with the help of agencies to help victims' rights prevail in justice systems.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanka. And I'll give the floor to Miss Kay Dosova from the fundamental rights agencies. Kay Dosova, you really have the floor for 4 minutes.
Janna Kaidosova
Thank you, chair, and thank you, honorable members, for this invitation to speak today on behalf of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, FRA. FRA has been working in the area of criminal justice since its establishment in '27. And since then, we have accumulated a substantial body of evidence in this area. Allow me to share with you four observations, which we believe should underpin today's discussions in order to ensure that any future legislative or any other action in this area is not only efficient, but also anchored in the values of the union. To begin with, the law in the books is not enough.
In recent decades, the EU has built a robust legal architecture. My president's predecessor referred to the procedural safeguards, the codification, which indeed, set up a gold global standards, underpinned by the charter and the case of the court of justice. However, FRA's research shows consistently that formal transposition alone is not sufficient. The legislation must work in practice. The safeguards that are built in the, for instance, European arrest warrant framework decision, European investigation order, or indeed e-evidence package must deliver procedural fairness and equality of arms in cross-border proceedings.
Where they fall short, the costs are not borne just by defendants, but it feeds litigation, delays proceedings, and erodes the mutual trust on which the entire system depends. Therefore, any future legislative action must be grounded in practice and informed by evidence. Secondly, future policy and legislation must generally empower victims. Certain crimes affect a large number of people. Online fraud being one prominent example, the one that also the protect EU internal security strategy prominently features, and which reflects the growing reality of digital criminality.
Yet these crimes, as far as evidence has been showing, are chronically underreported. Without effective support for victims, perpetrators enjoy impunity. Victim empowerment is not a nice soft add-on. It is a structural precondition for making criminal justice effective. It is in this context that the implementation of the mentioned revised victims' rights directive, but also any action that might be coming out from the future victims' rights strategy should be approached.
And also any other action legislative or soft law should be based on the fact that victims should be empowered and should be a participant with agency, not just bystanders. Thirdly, in a climate of polarization and rising threats, terrorism, cybercrime, hybrid attacks, there is persistent pressure to treat fundamental rights as obstacles to security and effective criminal investigation. FRASS findings based on direct interviews and discussions with law enforcement officials, criminal judges, prosecutors, as well as lawyers and rights holders, are, however, clear. Our values are not a luxury to be discarded during an emergency. In fact, they are the foundation of the sustainable security and the condition for effective, legitimate, trusted, and sustainable criminal justice.
In a polarized democratic environment, procedural fairness is itself a stabilizer. It sustains public confidence in institutions. As a result, any responses to serious threats must remain anchored in the principles of necessity, proportionality, and legality, with accountability and judicial redress built from the outset. Fourthly, lastly, the rapid integration of technology into criminal proceedings offers genuine efficiency gains. But whether we are talking about the use of AI in policing or video conferencing in cross-border criminal trials, technology must serve justice, not compromise it.
Every digital tool deployed in criminal justice should operate under effective human oversight, be adapted to the specific legal environment, and be governed by effective, enforceable rules that uphold the rule of law and right to a fair trial. The EU owes its citizens an agile digital justice response that is built on a rights by design approach, not merely a technologically efficient one. Fra's role, former role under the EU AI act, as well as our ongoing work on high-risk AI, which encompasses, of course, the justice field, can help underpin the uptake of technology that serves justice. Let me close. The Protect EU strategy explicitly calls on FRA and its evidence and expertise in protecting fundamental rights within security policies and laws.
We take our mandate seriously. Subject to our limited resources, FRA stands ready to support Europol, Eurojust, and EPPO in their crucial role in combating cross-border crime. We must ensure that as their operational effectiveness grows, our frameworks for accountability and judicial redress grow with them. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Gallo Sova. And now we move to Q and A. Yes. Let me just remind you that we have a long hearing ahead of us, extremely interesting, but we'll have to be particularly careful about the time management to make the most of it. So please limit your questions to one and a half minutes.
Each question will be followed by replies. And therefore, I would kindly invite you to indicate to whom you address the questions, as the time available for replies would be two minutes. Then I start with EPP. Yes. With Mr. Taweri.
Pekka Toveri
Thank you, chair. Thank you. Very good, good briefings. My youngest son is a detective investigating organized crime in a medium sized town in Finland. And, basically, all the criminal cases they are handling on track related, actually, the trucks come outside Finland through international criminal organizations.
And I do totally support because the message from the field is that we need more information. We need more cooperation with Europol and other police authorities and organizations around Europe. We have to work, and we have to work fast, because the criminals are much more innovative and faster than our authorities can be, unfortunately. And the one big message is that, yes, we have to rely and work on a legal basis, but laws have to live on the time. Otherwise, we can't protect our people.
And that feedback loop is far too long. So my question, I don't know who is the best to answer actually this, but how are you working on the mechanism so that we could get the feedback from our police organization and prosecutors and others on what are the actual problems in our legislation so that we can then work on the legislation because this house and all the parliaments in the member states are there to make and make new laws and improve the laws we currently have? Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Mister Doverde, I suggested T. G. Hamdi, just to split the two minutes available.
Floriana Sipala
Thank you. First of all, I would like to say that we, the problem of drugs trafficking has also to be seen in relation to other documents, not only legislation, not only documents dealing with legislation that have been issued by the commission. I remember the strategy on drugs adopted in December and a dedicated action plan on action against the drugs trafficking that was adopted at the same time. Why am I mentioning? Because they also refer to the role that can be played by local and, of course, national authorities in many areas, dismantling labs, producing chemical drugs, for instance, or addressing the issue of recruitment of young people by drugs trafficking authorities.
And plus, I wish also to remind that our proposal for addressing the problem of precursor of drugs, which is also with the European Parliament and the Council. But the straightforward answer to your question is yes. We are very much in contact with the member states. And in the council, of course, but not exclusively in the council, we have dedicated expert groups that we gather regularly to exchange with the member states on the efficiency of the current legislation and what they will need in addition to what already exists.
Peter Jozsef Csonka
Thank you very much. As far as prosecutors are concerned, as I mentioned, we had listened to the views of practitioners in the context of the high level forum on the future of EU common justice throughout last year, 2023. And we identified indeed the revision of the EIO, the European investigation order, as one of the major priorities. I did not mention specifically, but one point we will look into is the cross-border recognition of tracking, car tracking, car bugging devices. There.
Peter Jozsef Csonka
A lack of clarity there. An interception, perhaps, will be an issue as well. And then, of course, we listen to the chief prosecutors in the context of the consultative forum organized by Eurojust every year, and they just organized one where all these issues come up, and they tell us what instruments need to be adapted or amended. And indeed, in the context of Eurojust evaluation, we have already picked up some of these issues. So, this is an ongoing dialogue, and indeed, the loop takes a bit of time, but I think it's necessary that we digest this and put it into proper legislation and impact assessment.
Thank you.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much. And first of all, apologies for only arriving late to this very interesting exchange. I will start with a general question because very often, we are aware that, yes, of course, organized crime is very often a cross-border crime, but nevertheless, the same kind of crime might take different steps in different member states to become effective. So, to that extent, I would like to know, do you think that more regular meetings, exchanges, both in the area of police forces, but also in the area of the judiciary, may help to understand how crime is working in different member states. And based on that, then also find the best ways to deal with it.
That also leads me to another question. If you believe that in these times where even technologies are evolving ever more, we do need more specialized people in the police and judiciary to work on specific crimes. And a final question goes to the question of necessity, proportionality, and fair trials. I sometimes have the impression that these are nice words that we use in many of our legislations, but they are interpreted in different ways in our national systems. So do you see that also here we need more coherence to ensure the fundamentals of a democratic judiciary in our member states?
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, municipal. Missus, Miss Sipala, I will give you one minute. You will have one minute each.
Floriana Sipala
K? Thank you. More meetings with law enforcement for member states and judicial will always give a good opportunity to discuss the decision in depth. At the same time, I have to recall that, the impact hub, which I mentioned at the beginning, is indeed the place where member states and the EU agencies and the institution of the commission as well indeed, work together around a specific priority, trafficking in human beings, for instance, or trafficking of organized crime. And that's the place where also judicial authorities can be invited and are invited, and where this common understanding about the modus operandi and therefore also about the operational action can be found.
I also would like to recall that Europol and Eurojust published reports that are not only nice brochures, and I'm sure Alfredo will explain it, but also they are rich in the form in the way information is provided because they are built on member states' information. Specialized people, yes, particularly in the area of finance, for instance, to launch financial investigations. I think there is a need for more specialized persons in law enforcement. And when we will be presenting the proposal on organized crime, we're also reflecting on the need to specialize units against organized crime in law enforcement, but also judicial as they exist in some member states. On necessity and proportionality, you know better than me, but I think we are very serious in the way we are assessing it in our impact assessment and in the legislation.
And we also consult pretty much inside before presenting any proposal, which helps in keeping the pace with this criteria. Thank you.
Peter Jozsef Csonka
Thank you. Mister Sanka.
Thank you very much. I can only echo what Florian has said. We have a permanent consultation ongoing, in the context of the council. There are many working groups where we discuss new crime phenomena. I just remember that in the penultimate informal cuts, we discussed crime as a service in the context of organized crime.
Last week, we discussed cyberbullying as a new phenomenon, and how criminal law should react to it. So we are kept abreast by our practitioners of new things that the union may need to look into as a cross-border phenomenon. As far as updating our judiciaries about new crime phenomenon, new techniques of fighting crime, we have a judicial training network at EJTN, which every year updates its program in the light of new demands, and we tell them what are the new things that they should organize trainings on. And on subsidiarity and proportionality, I fully concur. Ultimately, law enforcement action is to be checked first by the national courts.
But, finally, some of these cases will arrive at the court of justice where the court of justice will filter out the measures which are disproportionate, and where there should be no, there should be a limit, in the light of the fundamental rights charter.
Janna Kaidosova
Thank you very much. I will just refer to maybe your last question about the proportionality and legitimacy and legality. Indeed, those shouldn't be in abstract terms. I believe there are two aspects to it. One is how this, for instance, fairness of trial should be applied in purely digital proceedings, for instance.
There are certain challenges that come up from the fact that we are not having an offline hearing, for instance, in person, but it's done through technology, and what can arise and how judges, how lawyers should react to that, how to ensure that overall fairness of the proceeding is achieved. So I think for that, the case law is emerging, and there is a guidance that is needed also at the national level. The second aspect is, of course, the dialogue between the national court, constitutional courts mostly, and the court of justice, but also looking beyond the wider Europe Court of Human Rights. And I think the guides, the handbooks, fact sheets that are developed by the European Court of Rights, our agency, to really follow the developments, not just at the European level, but also at the national level when it comes to concrete action. Concrete topics is indeed needed in order to understand what are the boundaries at the moment and how the case flow develops.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Miss Gaye Rosova of the BFE Group. Mr. Leje, floor is yours.
Thank.
Fabrice Leggeri
Thank you very much, Chairman. I'll be speaking in French. I'd like to thank the three guest speakers for their presentations, and my questions are for the two commission representatives. For more than a decade, we've been talking about improving police and judicial cooperation within the EU. So my question firstly touches upon the legal framework for the exchange of personal data linked to criminal and civil matters.
Are there still obstacles, legislative obstacles according to the commission that stand as an obstacle for this exchange of information or between the member states in Europe or both ways? I'm asking you this because I'm extremely worried the Europe, the EDPS has suspended cooperation between Frontex, the Coast Guard Agency, and Europol. So I'd like to know what your opinion is on this, because Europol and Frontex's mandate included cooperation on personal data. There was a first mandate in 2011. In 2006, the mandate was even deeper, and then more in 2018.
So why is it a problem? Is it because the EDPS is trying to throw a spanner in the works and hinder cooperation? Or is there still a legislative gap? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Floriana Sipala
Légère. From the point of view of police data exchange between the member states via Europol, we don't think that there are any obstacles standing in the way of the exchange. I think that they can take place under good conditions, and that they can be done effectively. Of course, there is always room for improvement when it comes to the member states' will to exchange information, because they're not forced. It's not mandatory.
So all member states have to play the game. And I think they're playing the game in a more and more convincing way. And they are providing Europol with data, and Europol can tap into the data for their analysis to underpin their cross-border or national investigations. But you hit the nail on the head when you talk about Frontex and Europol, and the exchange between these two agencies. The agencies themselves are very actively working on this to find the perfect legal solution that has two respects, both legal bases, the one for Frontex and the one for Europol, so that they can deal with the EDPS' concerns.
But we are actively involved, and we're working hard on this, and so are the two agencies. So this is something that we all have to sit down and resolve.
Georgiana Teodorescu
I think that this phenomenon is an extremely important one. And it seems that it focuses on individual cases, but really, we're talking about the rights of all EU citizens. And, of course, I'm talking about coordinated attacks against the police. The European Police Trade Union and the Spanish Confederation of Police Officers have said this on a number of occasions. We must better protect these professionals by including this crime in the European list of crimes.
When it comes to the rule of law and security and safety, we must ensure that we protect those who are upholding our security. Because without that, police and judicial cooperation will never be successful. For our group, this is extremely important when it comes to the future files on the classification of high risk professions, and this includes, of course, working at the police. So I'd like to hear what you think about this topic and how it can be dealt with at the European level, so that these professionals can work in an effective manner. And the question is for Miss Cipolla.
Did you miss Cipolla? I think it's your call.
Floriana Sipala
Thank you. First of all, I think you are right. The attacks against members of the law enforcement are unacceptable, and we express our full gratitude to the law enforcement and judicial actors that are active on the grounds, that are with their initiatives, with their activities, indeed, taking the risk of taking the heavy duty of facing terrorism and organized crime. I have no doubt about that. We fully recognize that, and we fully recognize these are activities that represent a high risk.
When you ask us to intervene, I'm afraid we have also to refer to some limits that are put in the treaties. And the treaty clearly says that the maintenance of law and order and the safeguard of internal security are primarily within the responsibility of member states. When we are reminded of this principle, we say that we abide by it, and we have to abide by it even in the case, as you mentioned, where we have a lot of sympathies and we express our support to law enforcement forces that are exposed to attacks. Thank you.
Fabienne Keller
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your presentations to all three speakers. Now people are clamoring for security and justice in the EU, and criminals are very agile. So our judiciary and law enforcement authorities have to be flexible and work across borders in order to catch the criminals. Two very specific questions.
AMLA is getting more power. So if we've got drugs trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking, there is money behind. Have you been flanking AMLA as it gains more power and has a wider remit so that you can also focus on the financial aspects linked to crime? Now, a rather cheeky question, if I may. Each and every one of you talked about your own DG and your own structure. Could each and every one of you talk about or mention two initiatives where there has been coordination between the judiciary and law enforcement that has helped us make progress?
We know that there is potential for synergy and efficiency if you bring together security and citizen protection.
Floriana Sipala
I'll start with the second question, if I may. Now we have shared our notes beforehand, so we don't overlap too much, but it is clear that we work hand in hand, especially when it comes to the revision of the mandates of both agencies. Now it's no coincidence that the revision of both agencies is going to happen at the same time, because we want Europol and Eurojust not to be seen individually, but rather in their ability to cooperate and to work hand in hand with other agencies. So that is why I talked about what I did during my first presentation. We work in a continuum.
If Europol is able to work together with other agencies and carry out operations, investigations against a criminal network, well, once those investigations have reached sufficient progress, they are sent over to the European judicial system. Now we are discussing some issues at the moment, when it comes to the legal basis for this. Now we have the same intention here. We're looking at harnessing synergies and avoiding overlaps. We have AMLA, of course, when it comes to combating money laundering.
The confiscation directive.
Floriana Sipala
So all member states are required to implement this by the end of the year, and this will be key when it comes to preventing criminal organizations from recruiting.
Javier Zarzalejos
Mister Song, missus Kadasova, very briefly on cooperation among agencies.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Peter Jozsef Csonka
Now to reply to Mrs. Keller, yes, both DGs work hand-in-glove. We're two directors general in the European Commission, and so we make sure that our work dovetails. We coordinate. I'm thinking about access to data that AMLA might have and that could be interesting when it comes to criminal justice cooperation, whether in the police sector or others.
AMLA can share data with Eurojust, the EPPO, and others. And we hope to achieve this through cooperation agreements between the different agencies and bodies within the JHA. I talked about overhauling the anti-fraud structure across the board. Europol, Eurojust, the EPPO are included. And we're also working with DG Home on this on a daily basis.
Data protection, this is a subject that brings us together. We're looking at the framework that applies to all the GHA stakeholders. We do have a relevant directive that applies. And this will allow us to make sure that we don't have just specific frameworks that apply to specific agencies. We want all of these rules to come together in a coherent whole.
So we're working together in order to make sure that this system is efficient and effective. And this also is a reply to Mr. Légère. There's this hit no-hit system. This is how I decided to talk of it.
It's the criminal justice cross-check mechanism. It's where the European agencies crosscheck the data across the board. Thank you.
Janna Kaidosova
Thank you very much. Maybe just one sentence. We take, I think, pride in the agency's approach, which has always been looking at the perspectives of all the actors involved in a given area or on a given issue. I'll give you an example. We are currently working on encryption workarounds for access to data by law enforcement for effective criminal investigations.
In that work, we are talking not only to the law enforcement officials, but also forensic experts. We're equally talking to prosecutors and talking to judges as well as lawyers. So, from the very outset in our agencies' work, one doesn't get a kind of silo approach to only looking at the issue from one group's perspective. And by doing that, we are, of course, collaborating with the relevant agency like Europol or Eurojust for the case of encryption, where we are also very much helped and assisted by getting access to relevant operational experts at a national level that we can talk to and who can actually explain to us the issues that they are facing or maybe possible solutions that they see. Thank you.
Saskia Bricmont
Thank you very much. Thank you for your interventions that show that you're all very complementary, actually, in the security architecture of the EU. Police cooperation is necessary to prepare the ground for judicial proceedings in respect of fundamental rights. And so having this in mind, I have questions to all of you, actually, how to ensure also looking to the upcoming reforms that are very timely and coming together for the Europol and Eurojust agencies, how to ensure that this coordination between police and judicial authorities is more formally established and not mainly relying on goodwill of people and that we have more automatic and formal cooperation. Also, budget-wise, police cooperation receives way more budget than the other agencies.
And so, how to ensure that other agencies that are also key for the work of Europol do not lag behind? And while the agencies are growing, the competencies are growing, the resources are growing, the scope of activities, how also to ensure that democratic scrutiny is growing. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, madam Brignon. I will give you one minute, to each of you, but one minute means what minute. So, please, I'm going to put you to the test, and the floor is yours. Did you go home?
Floriana Sipala
Yes. We are complementary, or rather the two agencies are complementary, and the two policies are complementary. I think the proposal will have to explain not only the philosophy and the culture of this complementarity, but also establish, as you say, the concrete mechanism to ensure that what happens at law enforcement level doesn't remain there, but is also followed up at the judicial level. I'm very tempted not to reply to the question on the resource. I think, of course, you are right that some agencies are bigger than others.
This also corresponds to political priorities and to the need to ensure that what we are doing to fight crimes is really well prepared and efficient and robust. But other agencies are also not lacking funds, if I can put it this way. And I think there will be an overall balance. Thank you.
Peter Jozsef Csonka
Thank you very much, Mr. President. Well, I mean, there is a mechanism ready for cooperation between Europe and Europe just in the two legal basis. We'll be looking to this cooperation mechanism again. And there is a working arrangement as well, which takes back a bit in time. But we will ask the two agencies to review the working arrangement.
And we will certainly follow that from the institutional point of view. On the budget, as Royallo said, this is always a matter of finding a balance between the various actors. We will certainly make sure that, the justice side, will not lag behind the police side. This is very important, indeed. And the democratic sec democratic scrutiny, I mean, there is already an annual reporting mechanism, whereby the president or the director of the agency comes to the European parliament to give you an account. We think that should continue also in the inter parliamentary committee.
So I think that should continue.
Thank you. Ms. Gaelsvot.
Janna Kaidosova
Thank you very much. While the FRA is not an operational agency, I hope we can contribute, as I already alluded to in my speech, to bringing to both Europol, Eurojust, but also EPPO and other agencies our expertise. You mentioned oversight is one of the areas where we've been working a lot, also directly with the different institutional safeguards that are built in some of these agencies, such as, for instance, Fundual Rights Officers. And we have evidence and findings that I hope can also inform the discussions on the ongoing revisions when it comes to ensuring that their operational effectiveness was its growth. It's also supported and followed up with the relevant safeguards.
Giuseppe Antoci
Thank you very much, chairman. This debate comes at a critical moment in time. Organized crime is more and more transnational and technically cutting-edge. Now we are in favor of bolstering cooperation in the same way as we are in favor of revising the mandates of the European Agency. Now, new legislation on this is a milestone, Madam Director, and it's a huge opportunity.
In Italy, we know exactly how decisive institutional cooperation is in the history of our country. We have had amazing results. And so, therefore, we're very committed to this. So, Madam Director, my question is to you. In the legislation that will see the light of day on cross border crime, that will see the light of day in a few months, we wonder whether there will be anything on the crime of belonging to an association similar to what we have in Italian law.
Let me remind you that Commissioner Brunner came to this committee and implied that this might happen, and this is an important request of ours. I think that at this point in time, in our term, organized crime and fighting against this is a crucial matter. Thank you.
Thank.
Floriana Sipala
Thank you very much, Mr. Antoci. I can confirm that in the commission's proposal, which is included in the commission work program and that will be unveiled before the end of the year, the European Commission will also be looking at the issue of participating or taking part, being involved in organized crime. This is an issue of utmost importance that we're mulling over. We're also looking at it in our impact assessment.
You know that it is mandatory to have an impact assessment before we unveil a proposal. But we believe that the proposal will include provisions on the deficient definition of organized crime. There will also be a list of aggravating circumstances, for example, ones linked to recruiting minors and the use of digital means to commit a crime. So we believe that there will also be harsher punishment or harsher sanctions than what we have now, and that there will also be differences depending on whether someone is a mere member or a leader, and so on and so forth. So these are our plans.
We hope that our efforts will bear fruit, and we hope we will unveil this proposal, as Commissioner Bruno said, before the end of the year.
Javier Zarzalejos
I have no speaker from ESN Group. I understand. Well, if that is the case, a brief second round, Missus DuPont. Yeah. Just one minute.
Lena Düpont
I'll try to be even a bit briefer. Thanks, Chair, and thanks to all the panelists for their questions so far. And I'd like to pick up something that has been said, I think, by Gigi just at the beginning of our discussion here. Indeed, we had developed, I would basically say, since the beginning of the treaties rather substantially in the field of home affairs. At the same time, the security situation around us changes dramatically, dynamically and even more so in the last, let's say, weeks, months and probably a few years.
So my question basically is, are the mandates we are about to discuss here in this House at European level, but also the connection to the national bodies of law enforcement and prosecution, fit for the purpose of hybrid threats? Because indeed, hybrid threats are so successful, if one would want to say so, because we need to first clarify who's responsible for what and is also able to react to that. So I would very much welcome an ambitious plea on that from your side. Thanks.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. There's another floor requested. Missus Garcia, Hermida Vandervale. I will group both questions, and then you will have to reply to them.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, chair. Thank you to all of the speakers. My question is very specific on the new anti corruption directive that we're going to have from the beginning of the summer. If everything goes according to plan, there are specific provisions to enhance the cooperation between the EU agencies as well as the relevant member states authorities. And I was wondering if the commission already has specific plans on how to offer guidance for this cooperation.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. So questions addressed to the commission. Miss Ippala.
Floriana Sipala
Thank you. Yes. Concerning hybrid threats, indeed, we are very much reflecting on preparing the proposal for revision of the Europol mandate. What could be the role of Europol on this issue? Of course, we are focusing on hybrid threats that translate into crimes, and there are many of these hybrid threats that translate into crime and where it will be, appropriate indeed to foresee a stronger role for Europol.
Thank you.
Thank you. Mister Songer.
Peter Jozsef Csonka
Thank you very much. The same for us. There is an annex to the Eurojust regulation which clarifies the crime categories for which Eurojust has competence. But in fact, it can deal with any other connected crime as well if it's serious and cross-border, which means, at least affecting two member states. But indeed, in the revision, we will look at the list.
And if hybrid threats can be somehow categorized and included, then we will certainly not refrain from doing it. The second point on the anti-corruption directive. Indeed, the commission will issue a strategic document in the second half of this year, an anti-corruption strategy, which will outline how the commission and its expert group will help national authorities through guidelines and guidance documents to implement the various provisions in the anti-corruption directive, including on cooperation between the various agencies and bodies at national level, but also vis-à-vis agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Well, that concludes the first panel of this hearing. We thank our speakers for their contribution to the hearing, to the debate, discussion. And now we move to our second panel on strengthening coordination among EU agencies and bodies, and enhancing cross-border criminal investigations. Well, I was gonna ask that.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Javier Zarzalejos
Wait. Wait. Well, we now move to our second panel. And this panel would like to focus on how coordination amongst EU agencies and cross border criminal investigations can be strengthened. Our speakers cover a wide range of expertise, which certainly would provide us with very relevant insights.
There'll be six speakers, that is a bit challenging in terms of time management. We have Miss Frederica Curtol, head of operation of Eurojust. Mister Alfredo Nunzi, the head of the department institutional and legal affairs of Europol. Miss Ignacio de Miguel de Lucas Martin, European prosecutor and European par from the European prosecutors, public prosecutor's office Hugh Dockery, mister Hugh Dock, secretary to the European judicial network, mister Bertrand Loubet, who is the captain and commander of the cross-border and European cooperation brigade in French-German operational unit, and mister Antonio Balsamo, president of the court of appeal of Palermo. We welcome all our speakers, and I will start by giving the floor to Missus Portol, head of operations at Duro Just.
And you have the floor for four minutes for your initial intervention.
Federica Curtol
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's very nice to be back here at the Libby hearing, again on cooperation among agencies. I realize I only have four minutes, so I will just dive in my brief presentation. And if it works, yes. It does.
So, you're already familiar with the work of our agencies. So just as a reminder, let me walk you through a case, a recent case that was very successful, where cooperation worked well. The case targeted criminals who were using an encrypted chat platform to arrange for drug trafficking, murders, and other criminal activities. The French Gendarmerie, together with the Dutch police, offered a technical solution to access this data available in the chat. And with the support of Eurojust, a joint investigation team was formed initially between France and The Netherlands.
This is to make sure to have a solid legal framework to obtain and share the data as evidence. Europol offered their expertise and analyzed over 115,000,000 messages, so provided solid support on that. And then Eurojust facilitated the execution of more than 1,000 requests for judicial cooperation in the EU and also other non-EU countries that you see in this slide. So this case shows that when Europe works together, when judicial and law enforcement authorities work together, we are very successful. We managed to turn raw data into digital evidence.
We ensured that this evidence was admissible in court. We identified the key jurisdictions for prosecutions and enabled them so that we could get solid results in courts, which withstood the appeals inevitable in these cases, with the full respect of the legal requirements in all the phases of the investigations. So cooperation among agencies works, but the institutions and the parliament have now an opportunity to make this even better. In this slide, you can see four proposals. I can only read them in the time I'm allocating today, but I will be delighted to provide you more details for each of these proposals in the question and answer time.
Starting with the first proposal, a more structured link between the work of Europol in operational task forces and joint investigation teams or judicial task forces facilitated by Eurojust. This will allow for evidence to withhold the admissibility standards, even more security in courts. Second, Eurojust support to the APPO. We want to strengthen even further our cooperation, especially in organized crime cases, where we see links between PIF crimes investigated by EPPO and the work of national prosecution offices on organized crime. Third, work with EGN even more.
We are hosted in the same building. I have here my dear colleague Hugh, and they are multiplier of knowledge that we accumulate at Eurojust also, with reference to real cases. And we think that they can help bring this knowledge to prosecutors so that in the easy cases, in the straightforward cases, they can be directly working together. And finally, we'd like to strengthen the role of Eurojust in the upcoming implementation of the evidence package. And I now come to the last message.
If you only retain one thing from my presentation, it is to keep justice high in the agenda while revising the regulations. At Eurojust, we believe that justice means that the criminals are not only arrested, but also successfully prosecuted and convicted. We believe that all EU actors that are here in this table will support bringing criminals to justice if they work together. The more effectively we cooperate, the more the EU taxpayers will have the best of our efficiency and the best justice. A balanced funding of resources among all these partners is crucial to allow all of us to play our part.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Missus Cortol. And now I give the floor to Mr. Nuncie from Europol. Mister Nuncie, floor is yours for minutes.
Alfredo Nunzi
Thank you, chair. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting Europol to this hearing. Multidisciplinary and multiagency cooperation is key to an effective prevention and fight against international serious crime. This is evident at EU level, where Europol, together with the other JHA agencies and entities, plays a key role in the security architecture, but also at the national level where law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and administrative authorities must cooperate effectively.
Speaker 41
I will focus briefly on Europol's cooperation with both the EPPO and Eurojust. Both entities, both agencies, are connected to Ciena, the Europol Secure Communication Channel, which allows the secure and seamless transfer of operational information. But more importantly, at the operational level, Europol is participating in joint investigation teams. Only in 2025, we signed up to 18 new JITs. And on the other hand, Eurojust and EPPO participation in Europol's operational task forces is increasing.
Alfredo Nunzi
Focusing briefly on cooperation with both entities, first of all, on Europol and EPPO cooperation. Our cooperation has evolved tremendously since the EPPO's inception, especially in the fight against missing trader intercommunity and VAT fraud, but also in the fight against money laundering and corruption. We support the PPO investigation through data analysis, cross-checking, analytical and intelligence reports, and in supporting their investigations concerning organized crime groups. Just to give the most recent example, we supported an action day led by Europol by the EPPO in March, where an organized crime group suspected of smuggling counterfeit cigarettes into Europe was targeted in a coordinated operation across five countries. As far as Europol Eurojust cooperation is concerned, we have a long-lasting and strong operational and strategic cooperation.
In addition to several joint investigations that we support, we have an example in the CIRIUS project, which is a joint initiative supporting cross-border access to electronic evidence. This is a central reference point for both law enforcement and judicial authorities in more than 40 countries. New tools such as the joint operational platform reflect a move towards more integrated cooperation. A brief comment on the future of Europol, including cooperation with other EU agencies and bodies. In the coming months, the mandates of Europol, Eurojust, and the EPPO will undergo assessment and revision.
In our view, in Europol's view, it will be essential to maintain clarity of the respective mandates, while seeking enhanced complementarity. With Eurojust, we see room for more shared services for electronic evidence, building on Sirius and aligning support to joint investigation teams. With the PPPO, we should deepen the follow the money approach, and perhaps we should also start thinking of a follow the data approach, including through joint threat analysis, crypto asset tracing support, and faster cross-matching with national financial intelligence units. We should also not forget that we need effective cooperation frameworks with the Anti-Money Laundering Authority and the future EU Customs Authority. This will be essential to strengthen the fight against financial crime and for the protection of the European financial interests.
Europol is also fully committed to support the EU anti-fraud architecture. And to do this, as it has been mentioned already by some of the MEPs who intervened earlier, we need adequate resources in addition to another great mandate. So in this respect, we look forward to continuous support by this house in connection with the next MFF, with a view to setting the right level of ambition for the future EU security architecture. So let me conclude, mister chair, by confirming Europol's engagement with the other EU partners and in support of the EU institutions to protect the interest of the European citizen. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Nuncino. I give the floor to the European prosecutor, De Lucas Martin.
Four minutes. You have the floor, sir.
Ignacio de Miguel de Lucas Martin
Chair. Thank you for the invitation, and good afternoon. I would like to begin by recalling who we are and what we do in the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The EPPO is a key actor and occupies a central level in the antifraud architecture in the investigation and prosecution of offenses against the financial interests of the European Union. EPPO is a true prosecutorial office with its own model to conduct cross-border investigation into fraud in participating member states with a twofold objective: recover the damage, recover the money, and bring the perpetrators to justice.
And in particular, this is very important when we are dealing with organized crime. Let me share something about my professional experience as a public prosecutor. I worked as prosecutor in Spain for almost twenty-five years, the last fifteen years dealing with organized crime cases, drug trafficking cases, money laundering cases until I was appointed into the EPPO. And the organized crime networks that I investigated and prosecuted in Spain are no different than the ones that we prosecute in the APPO, extremely sophisticated networks equipped with enormous financial resources of a transnational nature, and a real threat against the security, freedom, and integrity of our institutions. They are not organized crime networks of first class and second class.
They are all organized crime. That's why it's so important, and it was already mentioned by some of my predecessors, the revision of the framework decision on organized crime. One of the main challenges when we investigate and prosecute criminal networks is the need to adapt and update our institutions, our strategies, our investigations to the landscape and ecosystem of criminal networks that change constantly, that form alliances with a broad criminal portfolio, frequently resort to violence and corruption. In this context, when we need to update our strategies, our investigative measures, we need to think about how to strengthen the investigations, how to strengthen the investigation conducted by the APPO in the scope of our competencies. And the first remark I would like to share with you is the importance of dedicated police units in our investigations.
This is crucial because it increases the effectiveness, it makes our investigation more agile, and makes a difference in those countries in which we have dedicated police officers, in the EPPO offices like in Spain, we have seen the difference. Secondly, I would like now to turn to the Europol's role, which is definitely key for our investigation, in particular against organized crime. What type of support are we receiving, and what would we like to enhance? In particular, in the analysis of the documents, the devices, the electronic information that we collect in our investigations. Sometimes we gather an enormous amount of digital information, but we don't have the capacity to absorb it.
Let me give you an example. In Admiral operation, over 600 terabytes of digital evidence were collected. In operation meters, we are talking about more than 100, more than 400 terabytes. That's why we would like to involve systematically IglooPole in our investigations in order to get its operational and analytical support, improving the mechanisms for the exchange of information. This was something that was highlighted before, how important it is to exchange information because we are working together against the same threats within the European Union, in many occasions with links with certain states.
And then let me move to Eurojust. We value Europe Eurojust's experience and contribution in the coordination of cross-border investigation at judicial and prosecutorial level within the European Union, and in particular, with other states. And if we would like to explore new avenues for working together in order to optimize our resources. Finally, I would like to conclude with some remarks on the contribution of the national authorities. It is crucial also for us, cooperation with national authorities, in particular, especially prosecution offices, especially judicial bodies, in order to exchange information and conduct cross border investigation when needed.
Because sometimes, in the course of our investigation, APO investigations, we detect all their offenses fully outside of our competence, and it is very important for us to share this information with national authorities.
Thank.
Javier Zarzalejos
Hugh Dockry, secretary to the European judicial network, again for four minutes.
Hugh Dockery
Thank you very much, President. Firstly, can I just say what an honor and privilege it is for DGN to be here amongst so many great speakers, but in actual fact that we are part of the ecosystem in Europe for tackling transborder crime? Otherwise, just to say, unfortunately, I couldn't be here on January 15 when I was meant to be here to present my annual report to you, and I was ill. But on that, just going very quickly to if I can get the just very briefly, the structure of DJN means that we act as a magnifier all over. So we're a decentralized body with 500 contact points, not just among the judiciary, but the judiciary, prosecution, law enforcement, the ministries of justice, the ministries of interior, and indeed penal institutions.
So we cover the whole ambush in the member states and beyond. We're obviously hosted at Eurogis because we're very much complementary with them, both because we're operational. So actually, I work very closely. We I meet weekly with Federico to ensure that we align, that we work in a complementary fashion but without duplication. You see otherwise from this the different contact points we have.
This doesn't list all of them, but of course, we have a relationship with the EPO, with the Fundamental Rights Agency, with Europol, with the EJTN, the ERA, and the UN. And in that, we're always looking for synergies that we can build on with other operational bodies and agencies in the EU. Otherwise, in that, we're we have been around for 28 years now. So we were founded in 1998 by 15 member states. We started our main product, which is our website, in 2000.
And since then, we have grown to being 500 contract points, as I say, in Europe and over 150 around the world. This is just a very brief list of the many judicial networks around the world with which we have a relationship. And on that, I suppose it's worth pointing out that the EJN is the oldest judicial network in the world. So we are the model that the UN uses everywhere else. We also work, of course, very closely, not just with the UN ODC, but with EU-funded projects like El Pacto and EU Act.
And what we do also is we assist in the creation of new networks. So we're working with El Pacto at the moment to create a Caribbean judicial network. And on that, I will mention later on some of the tools that we have developed by practitioners, for practitioners, over the last 20 years, but these are seen as highly valuable beyond Europe itself. I mentioned the biannual report, and I won't go through it here, but it's just a screen grab of the statistics that we had over two years, 2023 and 2024. And as you see earlier, where we have a relationship with the different institutions, we work very closely, of course, with DG Just, but we work with DG Home as well.
On occasions, DG Interpath and the external services. And depending on the products that they want from us, so for example, the two most famous products that we have on our website are the Fiche Belgian judicial atlas, which I will mention. Otherwise, this report lists all of the meetings that we've had, how we spend our budget, and the topics of conversation and debate during those meetings. I'm not going to read this to you, but this is just to demonstrate the actual added value and what the contact points are meant to do. So they have to generally speak two languages, their native language and another language, to ensure that they're able to assist their colleagues all around Europe.
And then otherwise in this, we have been involved in the eleventh round of mutual evaluations of the council last year and this year as an observer. We hold a meeting in the host state for the presidency of the European Union rotating every year, and where we debate particular topics of interest to the commission to ensure that we're able to give feedback on implementation, best practices, and successes. And lastly, this is, as I mentioned, just our website, which has been around since 2000. These are all the different tools that we have. I suppose, in particular, that we're proud of is our relationship with the EJTN, where we have an agreement that we train the trainer to ensure that every member state has sufficiently qualified people for the evidence package.
Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you so much. And now I give the floor to Mister Loubet, who's a commander of the cross-border and European cooperation brigade in the French general operational unit. Welcome, Mr. Loubet.
Speaker 44
You have the floor for 4 minutes. I'll be.
Speaking in French to thank you, Chair, and thank you for giving me the floor to present in a nontechnical way, in a more pragmatic way from the perspective of a John Darmory officer and also a citizen. So really, I'm going to explain the joint efforts made between the French and the German police forces in order to harness synergy and bolster cross border corporation. Now our word is, or rather, a picture's worth a thousand words, so I actually have a short film to show you. It's just a minute and a half if that's possible.
Merci.
Speaker 44
Thank you. So you can see from a citizen's perspective, I mean, that's really our focus, because I work hand in hand with citizens on a day-to-day basis. I've heard a lot about organized crime and combating organized crime, and I think that is wonderful. The French-German operational unit works alongside Europol when it comes to dismantling migrant trafficking networks in the region of Cologne, and we really are involved in this broader aspect of criminality. But we must not hide the daily criminal activities which affect citizens every day.
This can sometimes be a ramification of organized crime. We've heard about recruitment of minors, perhaps a pickpocket on the Paris Métro. That could be a knock-on or a spillover effect from organized crime. So we also focus our action on this daily crime. We try to be deterrent and proactive.
Now you saw it in the video. We are under the aegis of the prosecutors. We carry out our work. So the Aachen agreement was signed by President Macron and Angela Merkel, the chancellor, in 2016, and it shows how important this cooperation is for our countries and for our forces. Now we've done this in a free manner because it is under the national budgets that the cost and the operations take place.
Now I'm happy to hear that DG Home does have a project in the pipeline to bolster this operational cooperation. And I think that we can answer three of the points raised by DG Home because exchange of information is something that we do in a in situ, specific manner. For instance, the BRX g seven, we were investigating German nationals who were being investigated in their country. And it was actually thanks to an exchange of information between German and French forces that allowed us to carry out a repressive action against these people. And then that we send a message to our enemies about the synergies that we have between our forces.
Operational synergies, you've seen this. I mean, we are also innovative. Now John Damieri has tried to work alongside the Carabinieri in Italy and the Guardiola in Spain, and perhaps they weren't as willing as the federal police to work together in this way. But these types of cooperation can help us do work because 40 years after the Schengen agreement was signed, well, I think that ensuring security and safety of citizens is something which remains a priority.
Speaker 45
Well, I give the floor to the president of the court of appeal of Palermo, Mister Balsamo, for four minutes. Floor is yours. Welcome.
Thank.
Antonio Balsamo
Thank you very much, chair Sarzalejos, and all members of the Liebe Committee. Thank you very much for inviting me to this hearing. For us, being invited here is very special because the Court of Appeals of Palermo is the place where at the beginning of the 1980s, we really did an about-turn when it came to fighting organized crime and cooperating on this. Now when it comes to fighting against organized crime, it was about fighting against a state within a state that benefited greatly from international drug trafficking. And there was investment in Italy and abroad, and it, of course, caused problems for the internal market.
And it started the tragic phase of killings, which killed judges. And at this dark hour, we overhauled the entire system. Rocco Kinichi and Giovanni Falcone started this. They started working on the first cross-border survey based on the follow the money principle. And it was about maximum mutual trust between the Italian judicial authorities and those of other countries in Europe and around the world.
Speaker 49
We have fought against the mafia. The mafia in Sicily has been seen as a fight for freedom itself. So we have actual lessons that we've drawn that are very topical. The first lesson is the need to rethink the way that cross-border investigations are structured and organized. We need to have joint bodies, joint investigative bodies.
Antonio Balsamo
It should be more about than JITs, G I JIT's. We have a Palermo Convention, Merida Convention, and Hanoi Convention. It's about fighting against organized crime. And like Rocco Kinichi said, organized crime mutates incessantly. But despite changing, it stays the same.
It is identical to itself. And it is this essence that set us up the anti mafia directorate in Italy. And Eurojust was built on this model. And I think that this is even more urgent than before, because now just using national resources isn't enough to grapple with cybercrime. The second lesson that we have drawn is knowing that international cooperation can only be effective if we focus on major harmonization, starting off with the definition itself of organized crime and the way we fight against mafia-led activities online.
We have to look at what's happening in prisons and outside the prisons. We have to look at criminal communications and how criminals communicate with each other. And then, of course, the whole issue of criminal justice or criminal law procedure, gathering of evidence, digital evidence, and so on. There are so many uncertainties, even within a country, even within Italy. But we could deal with these uncertainties if we have uniform proposals that we agree on in Europe.
Sorry.
Antonio Balsamo
So the third lesson is that, as Giovanni Falcone emphasized, the most effective tools to battle against organized crime are the weapons of the rule of law. So it's not just about cracking down on special laws. As the European Court of Human Rights case law has shown, this isn't just an intergovernmental process. This is a tool to fully implement fundamental rights, especially the fundamental rights of more vulnerable groups or individuals. So we need to work hand in glove with third countries, because otherwise, if we don't do that, we won't be able to fight against organized crime.
It is significant than the most recent experience of the Palermo prosecutor. When we look at assets, mafia assets in Latin America, we look at how we can help the victims of human trafficking and torture in Africa. And the experience that we've garnered will be in a document that I will send to you in the next few days. There's also Operation Thalassa, which is the tip of the iceberg of what we're doing. It's extremely important to look at the dialogue between the judicial system and lawmakers.
This has really underpinned our Ronione la Torre law. We believe that this is one of the very important laws. And then the Directive of 2024 on the freezing and confiscation of assets is one of the most important acts of legislation for the EU. All of this stemmed from dreams of Alte Gasperi that looked at this in Aachen, and he said that the future will not be built, it will be built through democracy and through constructive approaches and freedom. Europe really expresses our most authentic values.
Javier Zarzalejos
And that is why it is such an honor for me to be with you here today.
President Balsamo, now we have concluded our first round, the opening remarks by our speakers, and we now open the Q&A session. There will be 1.5 minutes for each speaker in the political groups. And as we have six speakers, let me insist, please be as specific as possible both in your questions and on whom you address your questions. Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to have enough time to complete this session. First group would be missus Katarina Kinichi from EPP as a name that now sounds familiar to us and has been mentioned in the previous intervention.
So this is a good opportunity to pay tribute to judge Kenizzi and all those who have been at the forefront of the fight against organized crime, particularly in the mafia crime in Italy. So, missus Kinichi, the floor is yours.
Caterina Chinnici
Thank you very much, chairman. Thank you very much for paying tribute to my father and his sacrifice. And I'd like to thank the Doctor. Balsamo for referring to them and for talking about the need for cooperation to fight against organized crime, especially mafia-type associations, which began with my father, Judge Falcone, and others who gave up their lives in the fight against organized crime. So Mr.
Balsamo, thank you so much for paying tribute to them. I would like to refer to the fact that you said that it is necessary to have effective cooperation against cross-border crime. Now the doctor. Medillo, the anti-mafia prosecutor in Italy, also referred to an important point. There is a need to have centralized and specialized investigative teams in the member states.
We do have experience with JITs, Joint Investigative Teams. Do you think the time has come to come up with centralized and specialized teams? And if this is the case, how exactly can they be structured? And then there is the UN Group Against Cybercrime, and we approved the relevant legislation last week. And there is a UN Palermo Convention.
Speaker 52
So in light of all of this, what do you think, should the EU and member states join the new Cybercrime Convention? And what do you think are the necessary conditions for an effective implementation of the provisions of this new convention? And thank you once again for paying tribute to my father. I am very proud of this, but of course, it also evokes very strong emotions.
Okay. Thank.
Antonio Balsamo
Thank you very much for these very interesting questions. They are also highly topical. Now on joint investigative teams and centralized and specialized national teams, the Italian anti-terrorism and anti-mafia body has a lot of experience. And it has fostered dialogue with the different competent judicial authorities across the board. And this dialogue isn't based on exclusive investigative powers, but on how these investigative powers dovetail.
Now a body can have information on all the investigations in a specific area to be able to give indications to the different relevant bodies. It can also come up with common strategies by giving everyone a push. And I think that this is how we can mold the future, not only when it comes to national teams, but also to international teams. Now on the EU joining the Hanoi convention, I think that this is extremely positive because or would be positive because the Hanoi convention can inspire in the same way as the Budapest convention did, but in a more global or universal context, because it brings together the Budapest convention and the Palermo convention that have very important points such as how we can fight against the financial aspects of cybercrime. And it also refers to the protection of fundamental rights.
And they're just as important as the provisions in the Budapest Convention. So we need to foster a common culture. And this can also be done from a technical viewpoint. I believe that we have to protect fundamental rights not only on paper, but through living law, through law in action, as we say in English. And I think that the EU can make a huge contribution when it comes to relations with third countries.
Speaker 67
It could represent a guarantee or a safeguard that this new convention could both fight against cybercrime and protect fundamental rights at the same time.
Kristian Vigenin
Thank you, chair. Thank you to all speakers for the informative contributions. We see that the cross-border criminal networks, whether in drug trafficking, money laundering, or VAT fraud, are increasingly structured at European level. While our response is still too dependent on uneven national capacities. I would like to focus on how we ensure that EU cooperation tools work equally well across all member states, including those at key operational pressure points.
Because in the end, success will not be measured by the strength of the mandates of the EU agencies on paper, but by whether we can deliver consistent results across all the member states. So my question to Mister Nunzi, first, how can we ensure that member states located at key transit routes for trafficking and smuggling networks receive more systematic and proactive operational support rather than relying primarily on national capacity? Should the future Europol mandate revision move further towards a more operational role for Europol in such a high pressure context? And to Mister Martin, how can we strengthen the EPPO's ability in the upcoming revision of its mandate to handle complex cross-border financial crime that is often linked to organized criminal networks operating through multiple jurisdictions? Thank you.
Alfredo Nunzi
Thank you. And I should like to thank mister Biginin for the question. It's clear that we are closely supporting the commission in assessing the impact of the current mandate and the demands of the member states, especially the law enforcement authorities. We have had close consultations with the chiefs of police of the member states. We have carried out our assessment of the operational successes, and we are also aware of the treaties and what article 88 of the treaty allows Europol to operate and to support the law enforcement authorities.
We already have an excellent level of cooperation and interaction with the national law enforcement agencies across a large spectrum of criminal activities. I should like to mention organized crime, counterterrorism, cybercrime, child sexual abuse, migrant smuggling, trafficking of human beings, and several other major organized crime activities. More operational, I think this is a mutual dialogue between Europol and the law enforcement agencies. We aim at providing a picture that covers the European Union and the also international ramifications of organized crime. The resources that will be made available to Europol will play a key role.
And I'm not speaking of financial resources only, or mainly. I'm speaking of human resources and to mention an element that was raised during the previous panel, also the ability and the opportunity to recruit and to train competent law enforcement agencies. So, I think the future mandate and the legislator will do good in looking into how Europo can do more of what it is already doing. Thank you.
Fabrice Leggeri
Thank you, chair. I'll be speaking in French. I'd like to thank all of the speakers who have given us some background on the situation. And my question is for the commander of the cross-border French-German operational unit, and also the speaker from Palermo. Now we talk about these combats and about operations carried out jointly by the member states.
I have a simple question for both of you. How do you see the information and the understanding of the European legislative tools? You talked about the exchange of personal data in different types of cooperation between national police services and agencies. But it comes to, for example, in the court of appeal at the national level or on the ground of combating cross border criminal activities. What do you find is missing so that all actors on the ground would know what tools they can actually use at the European level?
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
So, President Balsamo and Commander Loubetti will have to split your available time.
Speaker 44
Thank you. Now in my presentation, I didn't want to go into too many details about our daily activities, but this is based on a common basis of training. Now, French and German officers are put side by side, and they are meant to cooperate. So they operate together on the same judicial framework. So there are specificities in both member states, from a judicial standpoint, but this requires important initial training and also an upkeep of the knowledge, and that is what we talk about when it comes to providing support because the initial and ongoing training is extremely important to ensure that our professionals can carry out the work in the best way possible and protect citizens.
Thank you.
Thank.
Antonio Balsamo
you. President Bassem. Yes.
I agree with Mr. Lubet, especially when it comes to the importance of training. I have taken part in some of the training courses organized in France. And I think that they're a very good example of what we could copy in other EU member states. It's important to draw up joint standards when it comes to certain types of judicial cooperation, and that is electronic evidence. For example, French legislation is a model for us.
And even the Italian Supreme Court referred to what France has been doing. The use of crypto phones that are often used by organized crime. The French are trailblazers. They know how to fight against this new type of communication. So I think it would be extremely important to set a European standard relating to collecting and dealing with this kind of evidence on the basis of the most effective investigations.
So that is an example of what we could achieve. Now this directive on cross-border crime that Floriana Sipala referred to earlier plays an important role. It will be another European legislative act, but I think that we all have to come up with common solutions to the global challenge. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Now I don't see any ECR speaker. So we move to the new group, and the floor will go to Missus Raquel Garcia and Mila Vantepalle. The floor is yours.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Gracias, presente. Thank you to all of our guests today for the very interesting presentations. My question is about the upcoming revision of the mandate of EPPO. And I have a question particularly to the representatives of the agencies here, just Europol and EPPO themselves. And I know it's like, you know, choosing between children, but if there was one thing, one thing that you would like to see changed or added to the revision of the mandate of EPPO when it comes to cooperation with your agencies or in the case of EPPO when it comes to cooperation with particularly also national authorities as it has been set by the prosecutor.
What would that be? Yeah. What would that be? That's the question. Thank you so much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. So, missus Cortal, mister De Lucas, please your time.
Ignacio de Miguel de Lucas Martin
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the, you know, question, that I think is very pertinent. In my view, there are at least 2 or 3 different key issues that should be addressed. First of all, clarify our mandate, our competencies. Secondly, in order to make the most of our current structure that is already effective, and it has been proved to be effective in view of the outcomes of our investigation of prosecution, indictments and convictions last year. Secondly, of course, complementarity.
Because when we are addressing transnational offenses and we conduct transnational investigations, we are there in order to cooperate with each other and optimize our resources. So in my view, there are three key points that will strengthen our effectiveness. First is the institutional, let's say, factor or aspect between these three different institutions at the EU level, making the most of our experience and our resources. Secondly, at the investigative level. As I mentioned in my previous intervention, we need to update our investigative measures in order to face or to address the challenges posed by not only organized crime, but criminal networks.
And later on, cross-border cooperation, cross-border investigation. It's true that the APPO conducts investigations into 24 participating member states already, but we need also to address the challenges at, you know, the international level when we deal with certain states. So in this scenario, I think Europol, Eurodoias, and the APPO can better work together in order to prove our effectiveness, our complementarity in the scope of our respective competencies.
Gracias, señor de Lucas, miss Kurtoll.
Federica Curtol
Thank you very much for the question, honorable member. That brings me back also to the slide with some concrete proposal that I had. One of the points was on EPPO, indeed, what we would like to do even more. We consider EPPO an important partner, a judicial authority that we would like to support, like we support the national judicial authorities. And at Eurojust, in almost 25 years of existence, we have developed a lot of coordination, judicial coordination tools that we'd like to put at the disposal of EPPO.
We are making great progress with joint investigation teams, but we also have other tools, and we'd like to connect EPPO, especially in the cases where their mandate in terms of, like, Mister Lucas Martin was saying before with the organized crime proceedings. We'd like to make them coordinate with the national authorities and put at their disposal our services for a better flow of information so that we have not a fragmented picture in the different prosecutions, but actually, they can come together and develop a joint prosecution strategy. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Now the floor goes to the group of the Greens. Madam Brigmont, Florentio.
Thank.
Saskia Bricmont
you. I'll be speaking in French. And since you're all here today, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, and thank you for all the work that you carry out on the ground, operational support. Because when we know the kind of work that is carried out and the results, well, hats off to you. Thank you.
Now, of course, we can always improve things. We can bolster cooperation, and I've heard from each of you that you've highlighted how important it is when it comes to reforming the mandates on the basis of the revisions. So especially thinking about the on the ground operations and Captain Lobet and the police operations that you carry out, I'd like to hear from you. How can we improve cooperation between judicial authorities and European agencies such as the EPPO, Europol, Eurojust? Europol supports an operational way for national police forces and national police officers, even at the local level, to provide joint responses. And this would also benefit all the national police officers.
So in your experience, what would you call on the European agencies to do to improve the culture throughout Europe? Now we often hear about the respect for fundamental rights. Is that a challenge in your day-to-day work? And, of course, I'm not targeting you, Mister Lobet, but thinking about, for instance, migration networks. Now we're focusing more on criminal organization because the migrants themselves are actually the victims.
So this is why I'm bringing up this issue of how this links up with fundamental rights. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Merci. Merci, madame Brickman. Merci. Madam. Thank.
Thank you very much, madam Brickman. I'll be brief. What do we need in law enforcement and the courts? We need a common culture. At the moment, I'm sorry to say that even within my ministry, my unit is not seen as something wonderful, not because I want people to think it's wonderful, but because it is.
Today, we're going beyond where we've gone in the past, against the European backdrop, because that's what is necessary. And I think that this shows that the centers of interest aren't the same across the board. So we want all security actors to develop this common culture, because we are talking about security in Europe. And security, of course, has to protect fundamental rights. That's how I see the work that I do on a daily basis.
We cannot have a society without any laws or without fundamental rights that are respected. This is very much a guiding principle for me when I do my work as a European citizen and as an individual. To fight against migration networks or smuggling networks is extremely important, and we have to fight against anything that breaches fundamental rights. This is very much how my teams feel no matter how big or small they are. Thank you.
Thank.
Giuseppe Antoci
Thank you very much. Now to Missus Cortol, I'd like to know how Eurodjust and Europol can work together better, and also to avoid duplication of efforts. You probably heard how Director Cipalla talked about a new definition of organized crime in the new directive, and also including this crime of participation in a criminal organization. So how can we, how will this inclusion improve cooperation? So I'd like to know whether including this definition of participation in a criminal organization will help.
So I was wondering what Europol, Eurojust, and Mr. Balsamo felt about this.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Antoci, Madame Cortol. We have two questions to answer. And then I will give the floor briefly to Europol.
Federica Curtol
Thank you very much for the very relevant questions. And, again, I would go back to one of the proposals that, indeed, I could only mention in my slides, which was a more structural connection between the work, the excellent work that Europol does, in analyzing the files and together with the national authorities in the operational task force, and what we do at Eurojust to coordinate the judicial authorities. This can be, yes, by our joint investigation teams, but not only. We would like to see maybe in our new mandate, also more agile tools to work, because sometimes we are not ready to sign a joint investigation team agreements. And maybe I connect with what doctor Balsamo was saying before, about the joint investigations of the United Convention.
Judicial task forces should be able to be set up to deal with these cases. So we think this will be very crucial to anticipate and not to wait until the judicial proceeding is in full swing because it will prevent a lot of issues afterwards, and it will make very sound and concrete results in terms of convictions later on, admissibility of evidence. So for me, the synergy is really there, and we'd like to support it. We showed it in many cases. So the Eureka case, which was a byproduct of, also the use of the information collected in the Encrochat case is a proof of this.
And then about the definition of organized crime, yes, we have seen this issue in many of the cases that we have dealt with at Eurojust, whereby we had different interpretation of the same norm, different culture, and it created slowness in the proceedings. Eventually, we managed to overcome them, but it was really difficult, and it took years. So we see this with, we gave input for that, and we hope to see it implemented soon. Thank you.
Thank.
Alfredo Nunzi
you. I'll reply in Italian. I'll be brief. When it comes to revised mandates, I think there has to be consistency and coherence with the legislation that is going to be vital. So the mandates have to dovetail with the legislation.
And, of course, the Parliament and the Council will play an important role. And when it comes to the definition of the crime of participating in a criminal organization, the European equivalent of Article 416 in the Italian criminal code or the relevant provision in the Palermo Convention. I would like to share my experience as a negotiator for the Italian government when negotiating the Palermo Convention. I think the biggest success of the Palermo Convention is that they achieved horizontal dialogue across the board against the backdrop of the UN in a more specific legislative context. So it is very much about sharing experiences, because the concept of organized crime varies between Italy and other European countries.
But the fact that we can sit around the same table and talk about the different points of view in order to reach a joint law is extremely important for everyone, the national agencies, and the relevant European agencies.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Nucci. And I have no speaker from the ESN group. Mister Urek, would you want to take the floor then? Yes. Very briefly.
President Balsamo.
Antonio Balsamo
Yeah. Just very briefly. I would like to thank Mr. Antoshi for this question. I think that the harmonization given by the current definition of organized crime, the framework decision, is very low. Now we need a different definition based on a list of typical offenses connected to the phenomenon of organized crime.
I think that the quantitative approach is not sufficient. The quantitative approach is based on the level of the penalty provided for by the domestic legislation for each form of a crime that is the basis of the definition of organized crime. Now we need a qualitative approach. We need to identify some criminal conducts that are typical of organized crime in the current historical phase, and then to adopt a common definition of organized crime that reflects the current reality of this phenomenon. I think that this common approach can mirror the approach of the law, which was an attempt to turn the law in action into the main piece of legislation against organized crime in Italy.
If this approach was very successful. So I hope for the new approach to the directive to be adopted by the European Union.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, President Balsamo. Now then we move to the second round on the CATCA basis. Madam Sorel, for just one minute, I will group the three requests.
My question is.
Malika Sorel
to Captain Lobet. You talk about a joint operational unit between the French and the German forces, and you said that had not been possible with the Spanish or the Italian authorities. Could you perhaps give some reasons for this? The second point, you talked about incivilities and daily nuisance. This is a real issue on a database.
Can you explain a little more about this? Is this true both in France and in Germany? And also, I'd like you to talk about something else because you said that your contributions haven't really been recognized. I mean, this is a challenge here because you are an example, perhaps at European level. And finally, I'd like to explain my concern and feelings given the fact that many things haven't been put in place to combat crime and incivility, and that's true throughout Europe.
Thank you.
One minute.
Fabienne Keller
Thank you very much for all your work in the field, as Saskia Brickman pointed out. So we feel very grateful to you for your commitment, your dedication, and all the efforts you are making together with your relevant teams. I live in a cross-border area, and I'm very impressed with the kind of structures that Mr. Loubette talked about where you have two cultures working together. Now that happens when it comes to the police and customs.
It doesn't always happen when it comes to the judicial authorities. We have hundreds of cross-border areas in Europe. So how can we extend this cooperation to the judicial authorities as well? How can we extend this further so that we can mold this common culture that you referred to, Mr.? Prosecutor?
I think that in this panel, we've heard very specific suggestions. The prosecutor talks about listing the most common crimes. Eurojust had four specific proposals making the evidence simpler and more efficient, harnessing jets as much as possible, making sure that evidence is accepted and that the judicial authorities and courts work hand in hand. How can we come up with a list of points that will help us improve the cooperation between police and judicial authorities to better fight crime?
Lena Düpont
Thanks, chair. And, let me first of all, salute all the expertise and competencies, actually that are on that panel here, which are very much welcome and, of course, also welcome your concrete contributions to our discussion here, which are very much appreciated and of high value. So thanks a lot for that as well. And one short question, as we have been speaking about, a lot actually in this house, about the upcoming MFF, we are speaking about the contributions and the needs of the agencies, but we hadn't talked much actually about what, for example, an organization and a body like mister Loubetz is representing here, is needing. So my concrete question to you would basically be whether the funds that the European Union is making available to the member states in order to contribute to cross-border cooperation are sufficient?
Are they easily accessible enough? And do they cover all the challenges and requirements that you actually need to pursue your job on the ground? Thanks.
Javier Zarzalejos
Yes, Missus DePonte. I didn't quite catch that. Mister Loubet, you okay. And then the last two questions of this round will be Palam Brigmont.
Saskia Bricmont
It was also, thank you, chair. A follow-up question to you and very much in line with my colleague, Keller, because you've set so many interesting and concrete ways to further enhance cooperation between your agencies that we would really much appreciate your input for the upcoming reforms, but also from EPPO side, as you know that we are working we will be working on a known initiative report from our committee. So your inputs would be really useful. And, madam Kertel, you specifically mentioned the need to put in place judicial task forces. Could you, in one minute, elaborate on this?
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And now the answers. I think that Mr. Loubette is going to be very busy. You have two, three questions to answer, and then I will go to Eurojust. Yeah?
Thank.
Speaker 44
You, chair. I think I did the right thing by coming here today. I'm gonna start with one of the last questions relating to the financial issues. Now this French German unit, now that is the most experience I've had with this unit that was created in 2019. Now European funds didn't allow for it to be created, because as I said, it's actually under national budgets.
Now I'm not going to talk on behalf of these Guardia Civil or the Carbonieri, but I think that this could perhaps hinder the creation of units like this because we look at the professional and linguistic skills of the officers. I mean, that's, of course, not the only thing that we look for. But, I mean, there hasn't been a significant budgetary contribution here. Now, of course, I would like to see this unit develop, but I am, of course, faced with, much like many other people, the budgetary realities. When I talk about language skills, for instance, to answer one of the questions by Miss Sorrell, the language barriers mean that today, there are people who are benefiting from a gray area, and not only in border regions.
Now when I say that I work, French German unit, people often ask me if I work in Alsace Alsatia, but no. For instance, we've worked in Biarritz. We're close to a border, but it's actually the Spanish border. Or if you're in Avion, then we're close to the Swiss border. We often work in Munich for Oktoberfest, and we're close to Austria and Italy.
We're not only working in the French-German framework. So why did I talk about these language barriers and the grey zones? Because if the forces don't speak my language, then we'll do whatever we can to communicate. But I thank you for bringing up this type of model and, being an example for security cooperation in Europe. Now I thank the members of the European Parliament for being available to hear about my work.
Thank you.
Federica Curtol
Thank you very much, Miss Keller and Missus Brickman, for the very relevant questions again. I will try to stay in one minute for the judicial task forces, and then come to the culture and the evidence. For the judicial task forces, indeed, we see the need between the work of law enforcement and then the more formal work of joint investigation teams to have something in the middle to bridge the gap. Because sometimes, and I will use maybe the example of hybrid threats that were mentioned here today. We have cases that are referred to Eurojust, but where the legislation is really not yet there in many countries, and where we still have to understand what exactly we are talking about and how to bring it up in judicial proceedings.
In this case, it's very important that experts and judicial authorities sit together and try to see with information available, also coming from Europe or from the operational task forces, what is possible to do, what is possible to, what is actionable, actually, in a court. And I think the review of judicial authorities in a task force dedicated to that, with the support of Eurojust and the experts of Eurojust, could be really relevant. And now I come to the cultures. Yes. They are very different.
And let me mention also our colleague of EGN today, because they have a very important role in bringing these cultures together in promoting, for example, legal English courses with the EGTN, the network for training of prosecutors. These are all very relevant initiatives, so that together with our input from the substance really allow to multiply knowledge and awareness and create a common culture. In the field of e-evidence, I think it's particularly important. It will hit us in August. There are new instruments for judicial cooperation directly between the judicial authorities and, this time, private entities, the service providers.
It's a complete Copernican revolution. We need to accompany the judicial authorities in this journey. We need to collect the euro, just all the issues that are coming in these cases, see how we can solve these issues, and then bring to the attention through the multiplication also activities of EGN of the judicial authorities, the possible solutions. So I hope this addresses your case.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Kurtau. Now then, we conclude this second panel. I have to congratulate and thank our speakers for their contributions. We will benefit immensely in future debates, and I think they have been followed with great interest by all members present. So, now we move to our third panel today, in which we will have the opportunity to hear the views of professional organizations and academia on the main challenges in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
This one. Yes. Yes. Well, dear colleagues, please go back to your seats so we can move on to this third panel in which representatives of the professional organizations and academia will talk about the main challenges in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. We have two speakers.
Unfortunately, professor Kathleen Lizetti, professor of European and international criminal law, the faculty of Dread Economy Definancial University Luxembourg, is not available today. So we will have two speakers. We'll have Mister Amedeo Barletta, vice chair of the European Criminal Bar Association, and we'll have Chris Amela, senior legal and policy officer at Fair Trials. So, again, we will first listen to the interventions of the speakers before moving on to the question-and-answer exchange. We will start with Mister Barletta from the European Criminal Bar Association.
Please, you have the floor for 4 minutes for your initial interventions.
Amedeo Barletta
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, distinguished members of the commission. It is a real privilege for me to address you today on judicial cooperation in criminal matters on behalf of the European Criminal Affairs Association, the main association of criminal defense lawyers in Europe. I will structure Marimax around the three key dimensions, also reflecting the perspective of the practitioners. First of all, the Lisbonization process.
The Lisbon treaty transformed judicial cooperation from a fragmented intergovernmental system into a constitutionized area of EU law, strengthening democratic oversight and anchoring fundamental rights at its core. Yet, the high system still resembles a forest of illegal instrument, framework decisions, directive, and regulation developed incrementally, often lacking coherence and interoperability. This fragmentation creates legal uncertainty and uneven protection of rights from the point of view of practitioners. We need recasting this instrument, so it is important. It's a structural point because we need a coherent framework ensuring that instruments operate together, not in isolation, and that no measure undermines rights guaranteed elsewhere in new law.
Without such coherence, mutual trust cannot be presumed. It must be earned through consistent safeguards and effective remedies. The second point we I want to underline is the importance of EPO because the European public prosecutor office represent a paradigmatic shift introducing a supranational prosecutorial power. However, important gaps remain. The EU still lacks a fully urbanized framework for cross border evidence gathering, raising concerns about admissibility, legality, and equality of arms.
In this context, reinforcing defense right is essential through consistent procedural safeguards, access to legal aid, and real legal remedies that need to have a European dimension, not just a national dimension. At the same time, we must address the overreliance on coercive measures. European arrest warrant is too often used as a default tool. Greater emphasis should be placed on proportionality and subsidiarity, ensuring that less intrusive measures are genuinely considered. I'm talking about measures like European supervision order, European probation order, or maybe European investigation orders when used just to collect with witnesses.
In particular, the European supervision order should be more widely used. It allows suspects to remain in their member states of residence, reduces unnecessary detention, and sentence defense right. This is very important also on a practical point of view. I am facing right now an issue with the defendant that has been requested by Germany, but is the sole caretaker of a child with grave disease. So it is important to allow this instrument to avoid European arrest warrant and coercive measure when they are not necessary and when it's possible to use noncoercive measure, like, for example, European supervision order.
The third point I would like to say is the importance of the video link. Because video link has a clear potentiality in cross border proceedings, it can reduce delays, cost, and the need for physical transfer, especially in the context of the European arrest warrant. It can also provide practical solutions in cases such as trials in absentia, by enabling participation from another member state. However, efficiency must not come at the expense of fairness. Remote participation is not equivalent to physical presence.
As practitioners, we emphasize the use of video link that the use of video link must be accompanied by strong safeguard to ensure effective participation, confidentiality, and full respect for defense rights. Just as a conclusion, we should move towards a coherent and harmonized framework of legal instruments at EU level regarding judicial cooperation and criminal matters. We need a stronger right based approach within the ecosystem with an effective system of cross border evidence gathering fully able to guarantee procedural rights. And finally, we need a more balanced use of EU tools like the European supervision order, European probation order, and European investigation order, prioritizing noncustodial measures and, at the same time, a wise use of properly regulated digital solutions. In short, we must ensure that efficiency and integration go hand in hand with the full protection of fundamental rights, because judicial cooperation needs legitimacy and the respect of fundamental rights granted this legitimacy.
Because as you have seen from the former panel, we did many progress on enforcement, but we still need to build up a real and coherent system of fundamental rights that can be guaranteed all over Europe. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Vice Chair Bartoletta. And I give the floor to Miss Chris Amela, senior legal and policy officer from Fair Trials.
Chris Amela
Honorable chair, distinguished members of the parliament, dear colleagues, thank you very much. I'm here, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on behalf of Fair Trials, a civil society organization devoted to promoting the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards. So, at fair trials, our central question is how we can promote cross-border judicial cooperation in a more humane way. To answer this question, we must start with what we see as a core structural problem. This is in connection with the overuse of the European arrest warrant.
Across the European Union, pretrial detention has become routine rather than exceptional. As you may know, around 1 in 5 people in prison are held without a final conviction. And this practice contributes to overcrowding, undermines the presumption of innocence, and erodes the principle that detention should be a measure of last resort. So what we see before us is a vicious cycle where we have domestically the overuse of pretrial detention, which leads to the almost automatic use of the European Arrest Warrant. And this creates, in practical terms, a cycle of suffering, as pretrial detention has a profound impact on a person's life.
Being detained, especially in another member state and not in your home country, can significantly affect your family life, your employment, and your access to legal assistance. So we observe a paradox where at the heart of we have mutual trust operates perfectly when it comes to the execution of the European arrest warrant, but yet it's very weak when it comes to the less coercive measures, as my colleague mentioned, such as the European supervision order. So the European supervision order is a great instrument that came to place as a response to the problems I just described before, when it comes to the overuse of pretrial detention. So as a supervision measure at your home country, instead of being detained abroad. However, what we observe in practice is that in many member states, there are no European supervision order decisions at all, and many judges in many countries are not aware of it at all.
So what we recommend here is more coordination mechanisms for these great instruments, such as the European supervision order, which will look like the ones we already have for the European arrest warrant. So Eurojust is doing a great job in facilitating and informing a central point of contact for judicial authorities for the European arrest warrant, and we think that similar mechanisms could be put in place on Eurojust and EGN level to facilitate less coercive measures such as the European supervision order. So fundamentally, we're afraid that any changes that might come from the European Commission on revising the mandate of the EU agencies or revising the mutual recognition instruments will not be as effective if we don't establish a clear mandatory proportionality assessment for the application of the European arrest warrant and clear refusal grounds if proportionality and necessity are not there. Now I want to turn to my other point regarding the upcoming initiative on the use of videoconferencing, which is extremely important, and we very much welcome it.
Chris Amela
We want to emphasize how important consent is to be put at the heart of the implementation of this measure. And lastly, as we heard before, Europol is going to function as an information hub and a technology hub, which we understand is extremely important. But at the same time, we want to briefly give you a glimpse of how these cases look in practice. What we hear from lawyers across Europe is what this vast amount of digital evidence looks like when it ends up in their cases? It's just a huge Excel or PDF sheet with multiple messages without proper timing of when these messages were sent or by whom they were sent.
And these lawyers need to rebut this evidence on the basis of just a huge document with plenty of information. So, we think that we should bear in mind how this looks in practice and invite the Commission to take action when it comes to the admissibility of evidence underpinning the principle of equality of arms in cases of encrypted and digital evidence, so that, ultimately, the right to a fair trial and the core principles that operate in our area of freedom, security, and justice are well respected. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Now I will give the floor to the speakers of the political groups, starting with the EPP. One and a half minutes, Mr. Chikorsky. The floor is yours.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very happy for this academic debate about future cooperation. I think it's needed, and I think it's very important to have a very good overview about cooperation and what we want to do for the future because the criminals are very well organized and criminality is increasing through the borders. And we know that, it's very important to have it, very good cooperation between the police and the judicial system what must respond in the same way. And we see a lot of progress.
We have it here many EuroChas successful story, 60% plus in five years of cooperation. It shows that we are making a very good job, and there are many countries as a Baltic state, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, who are cooperating together. But my questions are focused on the situation in Hungary because do you think that it will increase the investigation of the frauds if their EPPO is established in Hungary? And what do you think the commission should do much more for increasing the successful story of investigation of the fraud?
Thank you.
Amedeo Barletta
Just briefly, thank you for the question. Just briefly, it's not my cup of tea working speaking on the side of the EPO, but I can say that as we have been proven by the practice, the EPO showed very effective. We can say that it has been a success story, EPO. So maybe the addition of Hungary to the EPO can allow a better prosecution of crimes against the financial interest of the European Union. For sure, the first step may be the addition, the participation of Hungary to the EPO system will be an important move toward the better, more effective fighting against corruption and to in order to better protect the financial interest of the EU.
That is for sure. And generally speaking, all the cooperation instruments can allow a better response by member states also against the challenges coming from the criminality. But on the other side, we have to say that we need to go at the same time reinforcing the enforcement of law, response, but also creating an area of freedom, security, and justice. Freedom is the first word. So we have to grant fundamental rights and procedural safeguards in order to have a legitimate system of fighting against the crime in Europe.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Miss Smedda. Any remark on this? Okay. Now S and D group, Missus Sippel Floreschos.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much. And, clearly, close cooperation of both police and judiciary is important. But at the same time, it's more important than ever that in that cooperation, we fully respect the treaties and the Charter. And to be honest, after sixteen years working on these areas, I sometimes have the impression not only is nothing moving, it's getting worse. We talked about the road map, the rights for suspected and accused persons, better protecting witnesses.
We talked about the use and abuse of the European arrest warrant, about alternatives to imprisonment and pretrial detention. But it seems we are still having similar debates as before. And I think it's necessary in all these cooperation not only to rely on mutual trust, which cannot be decided, but it depends on real cooperation, understanding of the different systems that we still have both in the police and in the judicial area, which makes it even more complicated. But we also have to work on the trust of our citizens, that the rules are respected. And very often, we have the problem that the rules are so different that it's really hard to try to find out what can be done.
So my question to you would be, what can we do to give incentives to institutions on a national level to make better use of alternatives to detention and pretrial detention? What can we do to make them see that protecting the rights of suspected and abuse accused persons is also helpful for the safety of society? Because it's very dangerous if in an early stage of a case where you have no clear evidence, no indication that a person is really linked to a crime, but nevertheless, that person is put to pretrial detention, sometimes lasting a very long time. It leads to the fact that person is losing family members, friends, losing the job, creating a lot of problems that later on make their life very difficult. And at the same time, other citizens will think, oh, there must be something wrong with that person because he was put in detention.
There must be something wrong with that person. So we are interfering with the trust that we need in institutions, but also between citizens. So what can we do to improve the use of alternative measures?
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Miss Sippel. Miss Mella, I think, you know, pretrial detention is your turn.
Chris Amela
It's true that alternative measures between member states differ, and this is a problem: the lack of awareness and conformity between different alternative measures. However, so in that sense, better access to information, better grouping of information and these all soft measures, let's put it this way, are definitely extremely helpful too because, I mean, ultimately, the work of judicial authorities will be easier in the sense that, you know, they will have more alternatives at hand, easier alternatives, more effective alternatives. So, I mean, the complexity of this instrument is a well-identified problem, which hopefully will be addressed through this Lisbonization effort that is currently undertaken by the commission. And another point is that mutual trust should work throughout, in the sense that mutual trust cannot work blindly when it comes to exchange of evidence and the execution of the European arrest warrant, but then not work when it comes to less coercive measures and alternative measures. So currently, it seems that the way the system stands, it has not worked out.
So something needs to change there. And this is where our proposal for making proportionality necessity mandatory comes in.
Fabrice Leggeri
Thank you, chair. I'll be speaking in French. I'd like to thank the speakers for their presentations and for sharing their points of view. As this afternoon goes on, there are a lot of speakers and people who are concerned about the progress to be made in police and judicial cooperation. From the perspective of legal actors, lawyers, legal experts, a more general ID or we're talking about citizens or economic actors.
According to you, and I'm talking specifically to you two speakers, what do you think the priorities are when it comes to bringing about progress so that everyone can take ownership of police and judicial cooperation in Europe? Thank you.
Amedeo Barletta
Okay. As I said during my intervention, we need to maybe make the cooperation easier, maybe recasting the though the instrument, making it easier also to know all the instruments. Because in Europe, we also have a problem of knowledge about which are the instruments given by the EU law. Not always at the national level, judges, practitioners, but also policemen are aware of all the instruments they have. So we have we need better use of the instrument, better training of the actors of judicial cooperation, but also maybe would be very useful recasting, putting together all the instrument, maybe using the despairization process to make them of easier access maybe.
Because sometimes we have, as I said, it's a forest of instruments, and it's not easy to move into because not everybody, also between technicians, are aware of all the instruments that are on the table of EULO from EULO. Thank.
you. Yes, miss.
Chris Amela
I agree that we are at the moment, that it's an opportunity. As it was expressed before, somehow, it might feel that we are stuck in some way. So this is, I see this as an opportunity right now. And I fully echo what my colleague just said. And I would add, I guess, that I think a priority is to make sure that there is redress for cases that clearly do not make sense.
So when it comes to the admissibility of evidence, for example, we had lawyers in our network saying that, in their case, this Excel file with these communications intercepted by Encrochat, the communications were dated back in 1970 when the accused person was not even born. And this evidence was accepted by the judicial authorities without being questioned at all, on the basis of blind mutual trust. So I think that it's a priority to have redress for those cases in no matter what field they are that clearly do not make sense.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Miss Mella. I see no ECR speaker. So then renew. Missus Garcia Armeda Ventervali.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you so much, chair, and thank you to the speakers. My question is very specific about the quality of data in police databases in the European Union. We know that in some member states, it's.
a lot of, well,
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
I would say old, but more antiquated, data, inaccurate data. And, when that data is being shared between agencies or between member states, we know that it can lead to wrongful prosecutions, to infringements of privacy. And I was wondering if from the academic perspective, if this is something that you are following and if you have any specific recommendations on how to improve the, well, the supervision of this part of fundamental rights in police cooperation. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chris Amela
Very briefly, for example, in the example that I just mentioned, I think that it's very practically speaking, I mean, it's a problem that lawyers and the defendant do not have access to raw materials. So, as I said, because these communications are encrypted, they have access to a byproduct of the evidence in a way. And then, applying the quality of arms. So, having the possibility to defend oneself effectively becomes very tricky. So, definitely, you know, adapting our principles to the digital world is absolutely necessary.
So, this, I think, this.
Amedeo Barletta
I may add, it's important also, sorry, mister president. No. Because defense lawyers, for example, are faced with the enormous difficulty in managing the amount of data that is managed in investigation nowadays. So maybe also the and also, if we think to the use of AI, not everybody has the instruments to access effective AI tools, for example. So this creates some problems between big law firms and small law firms.
So it's important to rethink the system to allow effective defense for the lawyers, also in managing the data. And data are day by day more important in judicial processes. So it's important to think the architecture of how data are managed and how the access to data is granted also to the parties, to the private parties, to defense lawyers. So we are changing the way and we are working in which we are working to the legal processes. And so we need to update also the system, granting more rights also to the defense and to the private parties.
Because defense lawyers also represent victims, not just the defendant itself. So it's important to allow defense lawyers instruments to be effective and to participate effectively in the trials because, otherwise, we have no equal weight of arms. We have no effective defense. We have no effective participation of parties to the trials.
Saskia Bricmont
Thank you very much. You mentioned many challenges, gathering evidence, defense rights, harmonization of pretrial detention and conditions, and many other issues. DG just tried in the previous mandate to work, for instance, on the harmonization of pretrial detention conditions, and, unanimously, the member states refused. This doesn't mean we shouldn't, also from the parliament's side. We have upcoming reforms of the EPPO, Eurojust, Europol.
Do you think those are opportunities to do so, to include some of the aspects you touched upon in the reforms? Yes or no? If not, what's how can we proceed by working on new pieces of legislation, reforming others? I would like your input on this as well. Thank you.
Chris Amela
I would say definitely because, as I mentioned before, I'm afraid that, I mean, clearly, there is no consensus between member states on binding legislation on pretrial detention. This was evident. But what we are afraid of is that even if changes in other instruments and the mandate of the agencies come into place, then we will still bump into this problem, you know, of not having binding rules on pretrial detention. However, I think that it is still an opportunity to go around it through the mutual record, through the revision of the mutual recognition instruments. And that's why we put that much emphasis on the European arrest warrant, because the European arrest warrant is as if it has a presumption of detention within it.
So in that sense, you know, if the rules of this instrument are changed, it would be a very effective way to address the overuse of pretrial detention.
Amedeo Barletta
We'll adjust, for example, in the reform of EPO, we have just to think about a better organizational evidence gathering abroad because it has been proven not really effective, the actual system. And also, the EPO is a very effective system. But if you think now it's built, the regulation, there is no attention to the defense. There is very poor attention to the defense. Maybe we have to strengthen the position of defense lawyer into the EPO system because it is important to grant the legitimacy of this very innovative because Europe with the epic created something very, very innovative because a supranational body of prosecution that has no pain in the world, maybe.
It's very, very, but we need to strengthen the position of defense lawyers and to grant more procedural rights for the defendants. Thank you.
Chris Amela
And if I move very quickly, and this is, can I? Yes. I'm sorry. And this is cross-cutting because research shows that when a lawyer is in place, the chances of being put in pretrial detention are just way less. So if the law on the access to a lawyer and the role of a lawyer is strengthened, then the rates of pretrial detention will certainly drop.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. There's no further speaker in this first round. So, on the CATCA, I give the floor to Ms. Catherine Akinichi.
Thank.
Caterina Chinnici
Thank you very much. Thank you, chairman. I have a question for Mr. Barletta. Now for lawyers, and especially criminal lawyers, what do you think about the procedural differences across member states? To what extent do they play a role?
There are important aspects pertaining to the digitalization of justice and new technology. When it comes to these areas, do you think that more harmonization could increase mutual trust and therefore lead to more effective cooperation from the point of view of those defense lawyers? And, of course, I'm asking you this always bearing in mind the need to defend procedural rights.
Amedeo Barletta
Hope that you don't mind that I will reply in Italian, since we both share the same mother tongue. Yes. What you're saying, better judicial cooperation is vital. Mutual trust needs harmonization and approximation of the national legislation. So harmonization and approximation as enshrined in the treaty, more approximation, more trust.
And therefore, the system and safeguards will be more efficient and effective, because we need clarity, understanding, and user friendliness. The judicial cooperation system is already pretty complex because there are different models and different systems that have to interoperate. So if we have a legal framework that is a reference point and legislation is closer to each other, then it makes it much easier for the system and for defense lawyers that have to guarantee citizens' rights. So the rights of the accused and the defendant are extremely important. And also defense lawyers represent victims.
So defense lawyers play a crucial role. And if there is judicial cooperation, that bolsters the role of the defense lawyer. We've all seen that, at the moment, this is all about enforcement and prosecution. At the moment, judicial cooperation isn't really focusing on safeguards. So we need to look at safeguards, and we can bolster that by better harmonization, because more consistency will definitely make it easier for defense lawyers to act and to do things properly.
Javier Zarzalejos
It will also be easier for the judge to do his or her job. And, of course, if the judge does his or her job better, then it's reinforced rights for the citizens.
This third panel and the hearing, I think, been extremely useful and will benefit enormously from what we have heard here in the discussion of in the coming months and weeks of the legislative proposals that we expect from the commission. So, thanks again. Thanks. Thank you very much. Commissioner, president.
Thank you. Well, let's now move on to point number 6 on our agenda. The conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Lebanon on the cooperation between the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooper Eurojust, and the authorities of the Republic of Lebanon competent for judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The rapporteur of the committee is mister Jaroslav Joch from the PFE, and I give him the floor for four minutes for his considerations on this file. The floor is yours, Mr. Bjorn.
Jaroslav Bžoch
Thank you very much. Dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank you, Cheryl Rapautas, for a very constructive cooperation on this file. The conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Lebanon on the cooperation between Eurojust and Lebanese authorities competent for judicial cooperation in criminal matters is an important step towards a more secure and resilient Europe. The close cooperation of Eurojust with third countries is essential to combat a wide range of serious and complex cross border crime offenses, such as terrorism, cybercrime, drug, and illicit arms trafficking or migrants smuggling. Therefore, enhancing judicial cooperation in criminal matters and allowing the exchange of operational information between Eurojust and relevant Lebanese authorities not only enables a more efficient investigation and prosecution of serious cross-border crime offenses, but, more importantly, significantly strengthens the coordinated response to transnational serious crime, in particular, organized crime and terrorism.
Regarding the data protection aspect of the agreement, the explanation provided by the commission during the shadow meeting and the positive opinion of the European data protection supervisor proved satisfactory that this agreement in no way diverts from the European data protection and fundamental rights standards. The agreement provides strong safeguards with respect to the protection of privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, as well as additional safeguards for the protection of personal data of EU citizens transferred by Eurozas to Lebanese authorities. In light of the above, I would like to once again thank the shareholders for their work and constructive approach, and invite all colleagues to endorse the draft council decision next text in the committee vote in May. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And now I pass the floor on to the shadow reporters, starting with EPP, mister Tomastobe. Floor is yours for one minute.
Tomas Tobé
Thank you, Cher, and thank you, Rapporteur, for the work that has been done. I think it is very welcome that we are moving swiftly and also that the Rapporteur made sure that the commission has been able to provide us with all the necessary background, because it's clear that, of course, we need to step up the fight against serious organized crime. And cooperation with third countries is important in this regard. We have assessed the agreement with Lebanon, and we think it represents a concrete and important step forward. It will strengthen our capacity to crack down on organized crime and also complement the broader network of cooperation agreements concluded by Jure Yast.
We clearly see an added value with this agreement because it will facilitate even more information exchange, and that can also contribute to more effective investigations and prosecutions. EPP are ready to give our consent because we do think that the council should proceed with the conclusion of the agreement without delay. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Tube. Now for s and d, are you taking the floor? Okay. Then, Catalina Méndez.
Ana Catarina Mendes
Thank you, Mr. President. On behalf of my colleague, Francisco Cicch, I will speak in Portuguese, if you don't mind. Thank.
You, chair, distinguished colleagues. This agreement with Lebanon, we believe, is politically important. It's crucial. Judicial cooperation with third countries in a world where organized crime and terrorism know no borders has become extremely important. And this also shows a willingness to formalize judicial cooperation through partnerships with the Lebanese authorities.
This is the third agreement of this type since the beginning of this with Armenia and Bosnia Herzegovina. I'd like to thank the reporters' work. The commission was able to clarify any questions we had. The S and D group will vote in favor of this report. This is a key step when it comes to strengthening justice and security beyond our borders.
Javier Zarzalejos
So on behalf of Mister Franco, I'd like to thank all of the colleagues for the cooperation throughout the process, and also the rapporteur. Thank you, chair.
Thank you. The ECR Group, the rapporteur was Mr. Nicolas Bay. I don't see him. Anyone taken the floor on his behalf? That is not the case.
Then Missus Garcia Armida, again, Renew Group.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, chair. Thank you to the rapporteur for the work that he has done already, and thank you also to all the other shadows for the good exchange that we had, also with the representatives of the European Commission. I will be very short. I think that we're all aware of the exceptional situation that, well, what's going on in Lebanon. That's something that we addressed during our meeting.
I think that the commission replied satisfactorily to our concerns. I think that we still have to be very much aware possibly in the implementation phase of any agreements of whether Lebanon from a financial perspective can well endure, I would say, of support the commit the financial commitments that such an agreement require. And, also, the very specific security concerns, and I will say it as it is, given the, well, interesting institutional structure of the Lebanese government, to put it like that, with participation of Espola. But I still think that this is very important, and I think that I can recommend my colleagues from Renew in signing this agreement as well. So that's what I will do.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Garcia, Ermida, Vandervale. Madam Brigmon, you're the Saudi reporter for the group.
Saskia Bricmont
Thank you very much. I would like to start by expressing my deepest concern and also solidarity with the Lebanese people in light of the recent events. And particularly in this context, I think the EU should definitely strengthen its judicial cooperation, reason why we welcome the draft agreement with the Republic of Lebanon and Eurojust, which is an important step for judicial cooperation and also international cooperation relations of Eurojust. We note the interesting effort made by the Lebanon government in order to comply with the requirements, including on judicial independence and data protection. I think it also shows that the EU standards are taken as a model and should definitely not be weakened.
We also welcome the EDPS positive opinion and further recommendations that have been taken on board on data protection, on privacy. So our group will support hearing that there is a very broad support for this kind of cooperation between Eurojust and third countries. I also take the opportunity to convey a new message to the commission to support the conclusion of the different cooperation agreements between Eurojust and third countries and to affect the ADOC resources in order to unlock the negotiations with those countries. We think that it's very important that the commission also has this attention to judicial cooperation. Thank you.
Giuseppe Antoci
Thank you very much, chairman. This agreement has specific implications for security. Bolstering cooperation between Eurojust and Lebanon meets a very clear need to fight against cross-border crime. Without the proper judicial cooperation tools, we will always be a step behind. And this agreement is a step in the right direction.
Of course, the issue of safeguards is vital. And the text includes very important provisions on fundamental rights and data protection in line with the European standards. As the shadow rapporteur, I believe that the European Parliament can definitely support this agreement. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
And now the floor goes back to mister Bjorc for any concluding remark you may wish to make.
Jaroslav Bžoch
Yeah. I'll be very brief because my colleagues already stated all that we had in the discussion with the commission, and I'm really happy that we have the majority to support this because it's really crucial. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you to the rapporteur, Mr. Dioccia, the shadow rapporteurs. And then we have concluded this point, and we move to point number seven on our agenda, that will be held in camera. So, I mean, you're all aware of the rules applying to in camera sessions. So we will just make sure.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.