Minister Luhtanen: Hearing before the Libe Committee

It has been almost a half year since my first visit as Chairperson of the Justice and Home Affairs Council brought me to your Committee to present the goals of the Finnish Presidency.

Most of the Finnish Presidency is now behind us. We have held two meetings of the Council and organized an informal Council in Tampere. In addition, we have held a number of meetings with third countries n the troikka composition, as well as many other multilateral and bilateral meetings and visits. I regard this as a good time to provide you with an overview of progress during our Presidency.

In my view we have so far succeeded well in our task. Part of this is thanks also to the European Parliament and to your Committee for your constructive cooperation. On the basis of my fifteen years’ career as a Member of Parliament, I highly value the cooperation with the European Parliament.

I also want to stress today that our Presidency is not yet over. These last weeks before the Christmas holidays are very important to justice and home affairs. We still have ahead of us the December Justice and Home Affairs Council and the European Council, and they each have a point on their agenda that deals with the review of the Hague Programme. Also during the last weeks of our Presidency we shall need your cooperation in order to take forward European integration.

Distinguished Members of the European Parliament,

On the basis of my experience as Chairperson I would be prepared to classify my tasks as chairperson into three groups. One group consists of initiatives that have been carried forward from the previous Presidency. A second group consists of unforeseen events that the Presidency has the responsibility to deal with. A separate group consists of the objectives that the Presidency itself establishes.

To begin my review with the first group, in other words pending matters, I would like to state at the outset that I regard it as important to be able to move forward not only in the major fundamental questions of integration but also and in particular in the day-to-day work of the Union. As I noted to you at the beginning of our Presidency, the confidence of our citizens is not something that we can retain as a privilege, but instead it must be secured again and again.

With the delay in the Constitutional Treaty, it is absolutely necessary, specifically with a view towards our citizens, that the Union shows its capacity to act and its necessity. Reaching results that are visible to our citizens is the most effective way of securing an atmosphere in which we can find a new will also to clarify the major fundamental questions in integration, such as the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty. After all, the support of citizens for the work of the Union is strongest specifically in justice and home affairs. Indeed, the citizen’s perspective is an important component of our Presidency all the way until the end of December.

The security of citizens in an integrating Europe can be strengthened by ensuring that crossing the borders between Member States does not provide the offender with immunity from the appropriate sanctions for his or her acts. We regard the promotion of initiatives based on the principle of mutual recognition as very important in police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. The goal is an unbroken chain: an offender can be arrested in any Member State on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant, the evidence needed in criminal proceedings can be transferred on the basis of an European Evidence Warrant, a sentence imposed in one Member State can be taken into consideration in new criminal proceedings in another Member State, and a person on whom a custodial sentence has been imposed can be transferred back to his or her country of residence on the basis of the framework decision proposed by Finland, Sweden and Austria. It is this goal that we are seeking.

As an example of the progress that we have achieved in promoting this goal I could mention the framework decision on the taking into consideration of a sentence in new criminal proceedings in another Member State. At present, sentences imposed abroad are generally not taken into consideration, which places Union citizens in a different position and favours offenders who are active in different Member States. We believe that we can reach political agreement on this initiative already at the December Council.

Another example is the framework decision on the transfer of prisoners, which is similarly an important element of the programme for mutual recognition. Also in respect of this initiative we would appear to have good possibilities of reaching political agreement on the contents of the framework decision. In this respect I would like to thank also the European Parliament for its cooperation, in giving its opinion on the framework decision in July. Indeed, the proposal has in many respects been amended in the direction suggested by the European Parliament.

The European Evidence Warrant that I have already mentioned was adopted already at the beginning of our Presidency, thanks to the results achieved during the Austrian Presidency.

However, the citizens’ perspective does not demand security alone. We must similarly ensure the rights of our citizens.

In this connection I would like to mention the framework decision on data protection in police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. The goal of this framework decision is to strengthen the protection of personal data in the Union’s third pillar. We have reserved several extra days for the consideration of this initiative on the working group level. I believe that at the December Council we shall reach political agreement on some of the open questions. I would like to see that we can even reach political agreement on the entire instrument, but at times it is quite difficult to reach agreement among the Member States.

Also the framework decision on minimum procedural rights sends a signal to our citizens that we are holding fast to their fundamental rights. Some Member States oppose having a binding instrument. Nonetheless, our goal remains that such an instrument can ultimately be approved.

From the point of view of the rights of citizens one of the key initiatives of our Presidency is naturally the establishment of the Fundamental Rights Agency. The most difficult question has had to do with the competence of the Agency in the third pillar. The original proposal of the Commission that the Agency would have such a competence has not received the unanimous support of the Member States. For this reason we have sought a compromise solution which would enable the Agency to operate in some way in the field of the third pillar after the establishment of the Agency. The negotiations are, however, still ongoing in the Council. It is still our intention to submit the full question of the establishment of the Fundamental Rights Agency to the Council in December. It would be extremely problematic if the Council itself would not be able to reach the goal it has set for itself in a question of this importance to the citizens.

Distinguished Members of the European Parliament,

I mentioned as the second group, unforeseen events that the Presidency has the responsibility to deal with. During the Finnish Presidency the major such event was naturally the war in Lebanon. No one could have foreseen its violent eruption.

Among justice and home affairs, an event that had consequences that were difficult to foresee was the decision of the European Court of Justice on the agreement between the EU and the United States on the transfer of data regarding airplane passengers. The negotiation situation was difficult and the time limits tight. Also in this connection the major goal of the Presidency was to secure the interests of Union citizens. For Finland, it was the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that had the responsibility for leading the negotiations. The Ministry of Justice had a strong role in particular in respect of data protection and fundamental rights.

The worst outcome from the point of view of the rights of citizens and in particular of data protection would have been a situation where no agreement were to be in force, a situation in which individual Member States or airlines would have entered into negotiations leading to differing results. Reaching a result in the negotiations required once again finding a balance between the security interests and fundamental rights.

As a result of the solution we have found there was no disturbance in air traffic and the authorities of the United States continued to respect the data protection commitments that they had undertaken in 2004. The agreement that we had negotiated is only a temporary one. It is for the next Presidency to create a permanent arrangement.

Our goals in the negotiations were to a large extent similar to those of the LIBE Committee. I would like to thank the European Parliament and the rapporteur for the good cooperation.

Distinguished members of the European Parliament,

As the third group I have mentioned earlier the goals set by the Presidency itself. Finland as President of the Council had been mandated by the European Council to review the progress in justice and home affairs on the basis of the Hague Programme.

It was our goal to use this unique opportunity for a comprehensive review of the status of justice and home affairs and for the establishment of priorities in further development. We have succeeded well in this. In accordance with the mandate of the European Parliament it was our special task to examine the possibilities of improving decision-making in police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters on the basis of the existing fundamental treaties.

I, myself, have always made it clear that I would like to see the police and criminal law cooperation communised. I would also like the decision-making by majority to be increased in the Council and

The informal Council in Tampere was the key event in the review of the Hague Programme. For once, the Ministers of Justice and Ministers of the Interior had the opportunity to engage in a fundamental discussion on the state of play in the Union and on its development. The Presidency was much thanked for this. Some have criticized the meeting on the grounds that it was only discussion, and that no decisions were taken.

However, in a democracy a decision is not made without there first being discussion. Indeed, informal Councils are designed for this particular purpose. At Tampere, we reached wide agreement among the Member States that we must improve decision-making in, and the legitimacy of, police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. On my own part, I experienced the discussion as true commitment of the Member States to further progress in justice and home affairs.

Unfortunately, the uncertainties related to the Constitutional Treaty have cast their shadow also over Tampere. The Member States were not able to find unanimity about the way forward. Many supported the application of the so-called passerelle clause in article 42 of the Treaty on the European Union, while some in turn opposed this and wanted to move forward primarily through the Constitutional Treaty.

On my own part, at no time have I left it unclear that I would prefer to see communitization of police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. I would also prefer to see an increase in majority decisions and in the use of co-decision, as well as a strengthening of the role of the Court of Justice. These goals can be achieved both through the passerelle clause and through the Constitutional Treaty. Indeed, the Finnish Parliament is at present dealing with the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty.

It is my view that these two ways of going forward are not in conflict with one another. On the contrary, it is my view that if we should freeze all progress while we wait for a solution to the future of the Constitutional Treaty, we shall then truly be risking loss of the support of our citizens. This support of our citizens is an essential condition for development of the Union and also for the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty. The issue of the improvement of decision-making is now on the agenda of the December European Council.

However, the review of the Hague Programme is not merely a question of the improvement of decision-making. In respect of cooperation in criminal law the Member States once again committed themselves to the principle of mutual recognition and set pragmatic priorities for future drafting and implementation of instruments. In respect of cooperation in civil law we received support for a very concrete initiative for the simplification of instruments and of access to justice. This would have a real impact in improving the legal position of citizens.

Distinguished Mr Chairman,
Distinguished Members of the Libe Committee,

I would like to thank the European Parliament and in particular your Committee for good cooperation in the spirit of parliamentarism. However, at the same time I would like to emphasize that the Finnish Presidency is not yet over. We still have ahead of us one meeting of the Council and one European Council. Both are significant also in respect of issues affecting the European Parliament. In particular in respect of the European Council I hope that you would work through your own countries in order to ensure that the heads of State and Government dare to take decisions in December that would take Europe as a whole forward.

I thank you for your attention and I am happy to respond to your questions.