eurojust`s responses to the questions on foreign fighters asked by

EUROJUST’S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN FIGHTERS
ASKED BY THE LIBE COMMITTEE ON 5 FEBRUARY 2015
The Hague, 26 February 2015
____________________________________________________________
This document provides responses to a number of questions addressed to the President of
Eurojust during the exchange of views in the LIBE Committee of 5 February 2015 on the
criminal justice response to terrorism and foreign fighters. These questions could not be
answered by the President of Eurojust during the LIBE meeting due to insufficient time.
1) Question asked by the chair of the LIBE Committee, Mr Claude Moraes:
Eurojust plays an important role in monitoring national responses in the Member States. But what
is the real added value of Eurojust? How is Eurojust adapting to this new situation?
Eurojust’s response:
As mentioned in its recent Report entitled Foreign Fighters: Eurojust’s views on the phenomenon
and the criminal justice response, since 2012, Eurojust has been monitoring national responses
to identify challenges and best practice stemming from investigations and prosecutions of
aspiring foreign fighters and returnees, recruiters and facilitators, and has disseminated them to
practitioners in this field. Eurojust has also been reflecting on possible ways to enhance
mechanisms and tools with a view to reinforcing the effectiveness of the EU and national
criminal policy response to the phenomenon. It provided its view on the adequacy of the legal
framework at EU level, recommending a reflection on the need to update the Framework
Decision on combating terrorism by expanding the list of terrorist offences, addressing
problems encountered in relation to the proof of existence of a ‘terrorist group’ and assessing
whether it adequately responds to situations where self-motivated foreign fighters travel on
their own to conflict zones and are not part of a ‘terrorist group’. At the operational level,
Eurojust assists Member States in their response to countering this phenomenon, for example,
by facilitating the execution of EAWs, MLA requests, the setting up of JITs, etc. where
appropriate.
1
EUROJUST’S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN FIGHTERS
ASKED BY THE LIBE COMMITTEE ON 5 FEBRUARY 2015
2) Question asked by Ms Caterina Cinnici:
Regarding the draft Eurojust Regulation: Are there enough resources for the current actions to
ensure that Eurojust can efficiently fulfil its job?
Eurojust’s response:
The draft Eurojust Regulation, as the text stands now after the partial general approach of the
Council, does not bring any major change as to the tasks of Eurojust and powers of National
Members if compared to the current Eurojust Decision. Furthermore, Article 21 of the draft
Eurojust Regulation on exchanges of information with the Member States and between National
Members, is almost identical with the current Article 13 of the Eurojust Decision and the
majority of its paragraphs. This implies that the information on prosecutions and convictions
for terrorist offences would still be transmitted by the Member States to Eurojust on the basis of
Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005.
It is desirable that the negotiations on the draft Eurojust Regulation will lead to progress, and
that Eurojust is provided with sufficient resources, also from a financial point of view (e.g. to
finance JITs), to support the national authorities in a more effective way.
3) Question asked by Ms Judith Sargentini:
What is Eurojust’s relationship with the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA)?
Eurojust’s response:
Eurojust initiated informal contact with the FRA and followed this with the signing of a
Memorandum of Understanding with the FRA on 3 November 2014. The purpose of the
Memorandum of Understanding is to establish, define, encourage and improve cooperation
between Eurojust and the FRA. Within the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding,
Eurojust and the FRA can, inter alia, consult each other regularly on issues of common interest,
inform each other of developments in fields and projects of mutual interest and exchange
observations concerning their activities. For example, Eurojust provides regular input on the
FRA's annual work programme.
Under the Memorandum of Understanding, Eurojust and the FRA cannot exchange personal
data, but they can exchange strategic and technical information, e.g. general findings from
Eurojust or the FRA’s activities that could support the work of the other party, or information
and analysis such as trends and challenges faced as a result of their work. To enhance
cooperation even further, the Memorandum of Understanding foresees the possibility to
implement joint training activities and the exchange of expertise and best practice. Eurojust and
the FRA have nominated Contact Points to ensure continuous communication. For Eurojust, the
National Member for Austria fulfils this function.
2
EUROJUST’S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN FIGHTERS
ASKED BY THE LIBE COMMITTEE ON 5 FEBRUARY 2015
4) Question asked by Ms Marju Lauristin:
Regarding activities in countries with low levels of radicalisation, do you have information
regarding activities that aim to create networks is such countries? Regarding PNR, how do you
evaluate the exchange of information between EU countries?
Eurojust’s response:
Eurojust is not in a position to evaluate the exchange of information between Member States,
notably through PNR arrangements. Eurojust is not a party to PNR agreements, it is not directly
involved in the exchange of information set up by PNR schemes, nor does it have access to the
corresponding databases. However, Eurojust is mentioned in the PNR agreements between the
EU and Australia and the EU and the United States. These agreements obligate the relevant
authorities of both countries to provide Eurojust with analytical information from PNR data in
cases under examination or investigation or as necessary in a specific case to prevent, detect,
investigate or prosecute terrorism and serious transnational crime within the EU. Conversely,
the agreements enable Eurojust to request, within its mandate, access to PNR or relevant
analytical information obtained therefrom as necessary to fight terrorism and transnational
crimes within the EU. There are no equivalent provisions in the 2006 EU-Canada PNR
Agreement. However, the new draft agreement with Canada does contain an obligation which
mirrors the provisions of the US and Australian PNR Agreements.
5) Question asked by Ms Vicky Maeijer:
How can you deal with the foreign fighters’ phenomenon inside the functioning of Schengen? What
about the border controls?
Eurojust’s response:
As mentioned in its recent Report entitled Foreign Fighters: Eurojust’s views on the phenomenon
and the criminal justice response, Eurojust sees the European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) that are
inserted in the Schengen Information System (SIS) as important judicial decisions issued by
Member States that are pivotal in the arrest and surrender of foreign fighters. This is
particularly relevant in the context of their departure from and return to a European Union
without borders. Indeed, actions taken to improve checks at the external borders of the
European Union against national and EU databases, including SIS, aim to better detect foreign
fighters upon return from conflict zones. This would also facilitate the execution of EAWs
inserted in SIS.
The European Commission has very recently (29 January 2015) adopted new measures and
technical upgrades of SIS which will allow an accelerated and more targeted information
exchange on terrorist suspects among law enforcement authorities, state security services and
3
EUROJUST’S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN FIGHTERS
ASKED BY THE LIBE COMMITTEE ON 5 FEBRUARY 2015
border guards throughout the Schengen Area. By this new action, SIS will reinforce the efforts of
the Member States to invalidate personal identification documents of persons who may join
terrorist groups outside the EU. It will substantially contribute to more effective border
controls, because when checks of travel documents are carried out at the external borders, such
documents must be seized and the persons concerned will be detained. This forms part of the
work carried out by the Commission, in close cooperation with the Member States, to reinforce
border security within the existing legal framework in response to terrorist threats.
6) Question asked by Mr Juan Fernando López Aguilar:
What is the number and role of female foreign fighters? What is Eurojust’s experience as to the
implementation of the proclaimed will to cooperate? What has been the effectiveness in bringing
foreign fighters to justice?
Eurojust’s response:
Eurojust receives information on prosecutions and convictions for terrorist offences from the
competent authorities of the Member States, on the basis of Council Decision 2005/671/JHA on
the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences. However, only
sporadically does this information refer to the number of female foreign fighters. At the 2013
and 2014 Eurojust tactical meetings on terrorism addressing the phenomenon of foreign
fighters, the judicial authorities referred to an increase of females leaving to Syria, without
indicating concrete numbers. At these meetings, the participants agreed on the need for
increased judicial cooperation in fighting this phenomenon, giving priority and dealing as a
matter of urgency with requests for mutual legal assistance and recognition and enforcement of
judgements in connection with terrorist offences.
As regards the effectiveness in bringing foreign fighters to justice, it should be noted that the
number of convictions has increased, from 2 in 2013 to 12 in 2014. If this trend continues, this
is likely to have a deterrent effect on those convicted as well as on others. For example, in one
case, a Dutch court convicted foreign fighters for committing several offences, including
preparation and participation in armed combat for terrorist purposes. The judgement explicitly
mentions that the penalty in this case is intended to send a strong message to those that may
have the same intentions.
*
*
*
4
EUROJUST’S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN FIGHTERS
ASKED BY THE LIBE COMMITTEE ON 5 FEBRUARY 2015