Re:
confidential police databases. A
spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "We are looking at documentation suggesting
agencies obtained personal information through a corrupt police source
and then passed information to various media organisations. We have contacted
a number of people we wish to speak to in connection with this investigation,
but we are not prepared to disclose names or the organisations." The
spokesman said that four men had answered police bail last Thursday, "having
been previously arrested by our anti-corruption command as part of a
continuing investigation into passing police information to private investigation
agencies". The four were bailed again, to return on February 4. One
of the men is a 38-year-old police civilian staff member in Wandsworth, south
BRITONS
face languishing in foreign jails under controversial new euro arrest
warrants, civil rights groups have warned. They
slammed the lack of bail measures for the
warrants, which came into force
yesterday. People in the
Plans
to harmonise the divorce laws
across
A
PAN-EUROPEAN database of prostitutes is being compiled
to help track their movements before the expansion of the European Union floods
the continent with sex workers from eastern Europe. The database is being drawn
up by the Czech authorities but will be gradually expanded to include other
countries. Within just 10 days Czech police have gathered the details of
thousands of prostitutes in what they hope will become the world’s largest
file on the sex industry. Last week police rounded up thousands of sex workers
from more than 450 brothels in the
The irony of what is developing is almost too sweet to contemplate. The Greek Government has lodged a lawsuit against Tony Blair, at the international court of The Hague, which accuses him of "crimes against humanity" regarding his actions in Iraq. A total of 22 charges have been filed against him and other senior ministers. These are the very same people who, to appease the new master class in the EU, have given their consent to the EU-wide arrest warrant which will give any police officer or official, from any other member country, the right to arrest any British subject without the traditional safeguard of extradition papers. When the arrest warrant is enacted, alongside the new EU Constitution, in theory a Greek official will have the right to arrive at 10 Downing Street and demand the arrest of Mr Blair. They will also have the right to remove him to face trial in Greece, and incarceration in a Greek prison. Mr Blair, will have no right of release if not charged within 24 hours, will not face a jury and will be considered guilty until he can prove his innocence. Also under the EU Constitution, if any British police officer whose job it is to protect the PM tries to stop the Greek officers, he could also face arrest. What sweet justice it would be for Tony Blair to be incarcerated in a Greek prison like the bunch of plane spotters he did not think it worthwhile protecting as British subjects. (Derek Bennett, The UK Independence Party 13/8/03)
Court
proceedings over 418 days ended with the dramatic declaration that a long
Metropolitan Police operation aimed at snaring suspected drug dealers was
“massively illegal”. Judge Bathhurst-Norman pulled no punches in his ruling,
describing the undercover operation as “state-created
crime”. The aim had been a US-style “reverse sting”, designed to get
at drug dealers via money-laundering activities. Undercover officers were sent
to
The
Prime Minister’s abolition of the
traditional system of justice, dispensing with the
Lord Chancellorship after 1,400 years, is breathtaking. His decision, a
typically high-handed one with massive implications for the judicial system, seems
designed to make our Courts fit in better with
Excerpts
from The Grand Committee proceedings (First day-70 pages) on the Extradition
Bill
UK-US
Extradition Treaty Lord
Goodhart: My Lords, the Government have already indicated that the
treaty excludes the need to produce evidence of guilt to support the extradition
claim. Given that the
It
was reported,in the Daily Express newspaper that the Metropolitan
Police were now able to recruit foreign nationals into the Police Service. I
was informed that the 1701 Act of Settlement was amended to make this possible. There
is one relevant Clause in Magna Carta that does not allow this. I have
looked on the website of Parliament to see the debates in Parliament, 18th 19th
December and
Suspects of the
The proposed EU directive would extend the offences of racism and xenophobia to include discrimination on the grounds of religious conviction - something that was dropped by the Government more than a year ago following fierce opposition. Britain has negotiated a deal under which the offences will only apply when they involve incitement to violence. Lord Filkin said this was in line with current UK race laws. However, Britain has been forced to concede a review after two years at which point the directive could be extended to opinions that are simply considered offensive and not just those likely to incite violence. Agreement on the directive has been held up because some EU countries want a "low threshold for criminality on these issues". Philip Duly, campaign manager for the Freedom Association, said the Government should protect citizens from extradition for what he called "thought crimes". He added: "The Government has previously maintained that no one will be extradited for conduct which is not a crime in the UK. But here we have Lord Filkin admitting that there are circumstances which will be decided not by ministers but by courts." (Daily Telegraph 18/02/2003)
The European Commission has proposed the set up of a new agency to boost cyber security in Europe. The Commission hopes that the new body could become the central entity at European level to collect cyber security information. (EUobserver.com 10.02.2003)
British citizens may soon be liable for arrest over illegal conduct in other EU countries, even if they have never been abroad. Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor, reports "All foreigners should be shot." If I were to express such an opinion, it might raise eyebrows - or even doubts about my sanity. But could publishing this statement in The Daily Telegraph today lead to my arrest next year by, say, a Slovenian policeman in London? The prospect of finding myself extradited to stand trial in central or eastern Europe is now far from fanciful. Ten new members will be joining the European Union in May 2004. By then, the "framework decision" on the European arrest warrant will be in force throughout the EU. That agreement, quietly signed by European justice ministers last June, will allow member states to seek the extradition of people from other EU countries for 32 vague-sounding categories of crime - such as swindling, computer-related crime, corruption, racism and xenophobia. The only requirement in the framework agreement is that these offences, as defined by the requesting state, must be punishable with at least three years' imprisonment. I have no idea whether it is an imprisonable offence in Slovenia to commit xenophobia - "an intense fear or dislike of foreigners or strangers" according to my dictionary. But I have every reason to be concerned. Under 19th-century English libel law, it will be "published" every time someone downloads it in the future. For all I know, this principle might apply to xenophobic comments in any of the new EU states, such as Malta or Cyprus, Latvia or Lithuania, Hungary or Poland. I might therefore be committing an offence in Slovenia even if I have never visited it in my life. And my comments today could land me in court next year. The framework decision will take effect in Britain once the Government's Extradition Bill becomes law. Introducing the Bill last month, John Denham, the Home Office minister, insisted that "no one will be extradited for conduct that takes place lawfully in this country". That sounds reassuring - until you consider whether the "conduct" is writing the xenophobic words in London or publishing them abroad. Mr Denham went on to admit that "it will be possible for people to be extradited for conduct that is not illegal in UK law, but where that conduct has taken place in the requesting state and breaches its law". There is an important distinction. It is an offence under English law for a British citizen to commit murder or manslaughter abroad. If a British man were to kill his wife in Peru and then flee to Spain, the Crown Prosecution Service could well seek his extradition to stand trial in London. The Bill extends this definition to allow extradition for any offence committed abroad for which the offender could receive 12 months imprisonment both here and in the EU country. And why all this fuss about xenophobia and racism? The problem is that they are not now offences in the United Kingdom. At present, our "dual criminality" rule doesn't allow Britain to extradite people for conduct that would not be an offence at home. This rule will be abolished by the Extradition Bill for the 32 vague categories of crime in the framework document. The Commons Home Affairs Committee, chaired by the Labour MP Chris Mullen, has "grave concerns" about this. Take the recent case of the British planespotters charged with spying in Greece. As the committee pointed out last month, there would be nothing to stop the Greek authorities from classifying their activities as "sabotage" or, if they carried pocket PCs, "computer-related crime". On that basis, Britain would have to extradite them to Greece - even though collecting plane numbers is not an offence here. You will search the Extradition Bill in vain to find even a list of these 32 categories of crime. The first oblique reference to them in the Bill is clause 63(2)(b). When you finally reach clause 198(6), you are referred to the framework document itself. It is hardly worth the bother of tracking it down. Article 2.3 says that EU ministers may decide "at any time . . . to add other categories of offence to the list". In other words, Parliament will have no say. This, according to the Home Affairs Committee, is "highly undesirable". It gets worse. As we have seen, the framework document scraps the dual criminality protection for 32 categories of offence, provided they are serious enough to be punishable with imprisonment for three years. Yet Britain has decided to reduce that safeguard to 12 months imprisonment, bringing an unknown number of much less serious offences within its ambit. "We can see no justification for eroding the basic level of protection provided by the framework decision, and we are dismayed that the Home Office is seeking to do so," the Labour-led Home Affairs Committee commented. It also pointed out that the Government could extend this new rule to cover extradition to other, non-EU, countries - such as the United States - by simply designating them as "category 1 territories" under the Act. And what about the prospect of foreign policemen enforcing these arrest warrants in London? The Extradition Bill allows warrants to be executed "by a constable or by an appropriate person". That person does not even need to have a copy of the warrant with him. (Daily Telegraph 9/1/03)
In January, the European parliament passed the Swiebel Report on Human Rights, which was highly critical of British anti-terrorist measures (particularly the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001). As our Justice & Home Affairs spokesman Timothy Kirkhope said, "This is an outrageous intrusion into our domestic affairs .... unwarranted attacks on valuable public servants such as policemen and prison guards are completely unacceptable". The report flouts the convention that the parliament should not interfere in the internal affairs of member-states. The rapporteur on this report was the improbably-named Madame Joke (sic) Swiebel, a Dutch socialist of extreme left-wing leanings. By a bitter irony, the report was passed just days before the slaying of a British policeman by a terrorist asylum-seeker in Manchester. We Conservative MEPs voted against the report. Labour and Lib-Dem MEPs voted for it -- as usual, putting political correctness ahead of our national interest. And the Labour MEPs were effectively voting against their own government's handling of the issue. (January 2003 Roger Helmer's electronic newsletter from Brussels, rhelmer@europarl.eu.int)
The list of offences in the Bill that can give rise to extradition (European Arrest Warrant) is too vague and too wide and includes unacceptably ambiguous offences such as "computer related crime". (Early Day Motion 5 Jan 2003)
Freedom of speech is under assault from a new initiative of the EU social affairs directorate, the Racism and Xenophobia directive, which is soon to be enshrined into British law. Under this law, racism itself - as opposed to inciting racial hatred - becomes an offence. Under the astonishingly broad definition, the "public condoning of war crimes" and the public dissemination, including via the internet, of "tracts, pictures, or other material containing expressions of racism or xenophobia" becomes an offence. So does the "trivialisation" of Nazi atrocities. This might make it impossible, for instance, to defend Slobodan Milosevic in public, or suggest that Stalin was worse than Hitler. (Telegraph 06/01/2003)
As a result of recent European legislation, the authorities of the Russian Federation are entitled to ask the police in any Council of Europe member state to detain on the basis of a European arrest warrant any person they suspect of having violated Russian law. On this basis they asked the Danish authorities to arrest Akhmed Zakayev, the representative of Chechnya's elected leader Aslan Maskhadov, as a supposed accomplice in the recent Moscow siege (report, October 31). The Danes did as they were asked, although there appears to be no evidence against Mr Zakayev, although both he and Mr Maskhadov denounced the Moscow theatre outrage, and although the Kremlin's negotiator, Viktor Kazantsev, last year described Mr Zakayev as "a man with no blood on his hands". Under Europe's new laws Mr Putin seems able to have any political opponent arrested anywhere in Europe and brought before non-Russian courts for possible extradition to Russia. In most Council of Europe countries there is no habeas corpus and an accused person is presumed guilty until he can prove his innocence. (Letter to The Times November 04, 2002)
Fears that foreign policemen could be given powers to arrest people in Britain have emerged as a significant threat to Government extradition reforms. MPs plan to challenge David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to make clear in legislation that the new European Arrest Warrant will not allow other European Union police agencies or Europol to operate in Britain. Critics have voiced deep concern over the Bill, already published in draft form, because it would allow arrests under the warrant to be carried out by a constable or an "appropriate person". It would not be necessary for the arresting authority to be in possession of the warrant, provided it can be produced at the first realistic opportunity. It will be for the Home Secretary to designate who is an "appropriate person". Although "appropriate persons" are likely to include Customs and Excise and immigration officers, ministers have refused to say who they have in mind. Euro-sceptic critics suspect that this is to allow for a future designation of Europol officers as part of EU moves towards a common judicial area. Leolin Price, QC, an expert on European constitutional law, said: "Arrest for deportation without the general protection of extradition procedures is an alarming novelty in this country. If it were to be made by an officer of the member state where the warrant is issued, the novelty and the alarm would be worse." He added: "It is difficult to see why the Home Secretary should have an open-ended discretion to specify 'appropriate persons'. He should tell us . . . who are to be his 'appropriate persons' to make these extraordinary new arrests." (The Telegraph - 04/11/2002)
Monitoring reports on corruption and judicial capacity released by George Soros' Open Society Institute, OSI, called on the present member states to meet the same criteria that the EU requires of accession countries. Corruption and Anti-Corruption Policy - According to the report, both the legacy of communism and the nature of post-communist tradition provide powerful reasons why corruption may be expected to be a bigger problem in candidate states than in most member states. The candidates raising most concerns are Romania, Bulgaria (expected to join in 2007), Poland and Czech Republic. The EU, however, lacks benchmarks for assessing corruption in member states, and there is little available research or information available for making judgments about the extent to which corruption is more widespread in candidate states than member states. Strong evidence also suggests that while high-level corruption is found in some of the largest EU states, like Germany, France and Italy, the best candidate countries are less corrupt than the worst EU member states. Once candidate states are invited to join the Union, the Copenhagen mandate will cease to operate, and thus the EU needs to consider urgently how to continue monitoring corruption and anti-corruption policy in candidate states both up and after accession. Thus it was recommended that the EU should establish closer ties with the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO). Judicial Capacity - The impact of the EU accession process has been limited on this area due to the absence of clear EU judiciary standards and the often uncoordinated and ineffective expert support system, the report says. The judicial infrastructures in EU candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europemhowever, cannot yet guarantee a consistent independent, competent and accountable judicial process. The report finds that the candidate countries still need to find the right balance of independence and accountability for courts. In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Romania the executive continues to exercise undue influence over the administration of the judiciary and judges’ career paths. On the other hand, in Hungary and Lithuania, judiciaries have extensive autonomy and even risk becoming insufficiently accountable, insular and corporatist. (EUobserver.com 7/11/02)
Lord Woolf's concern that the British government will not strike the correct balance between the rights of society as a whole and the individual is timely. The implications for the British legal system of the principle of mutual recognition of all court orders throughout the EU, decided in a European Council meeting in 1999, has apparently not yet percolated through the psyche of our legal profession. In the pressures of the fight against crime, a European criminal justice system has been recklessly created without regard to the variable geometry of human rights observance within the area. Few would have concerns about the Netherlands or Denmark, say, where the legal systems are very different but the protection of citizens fundamental rights mirror our own. The problem really arises with recognising decisions made in countries where the provision of legal aid and advice is totally inadequate, and/or professional interpretation services virtually non-existent. Perhaps the Woolf doctrine will be put to the test when the European arrest warrant comes into being on January 1 2004. Are our judges going to refuse to allow the extradition of our citizens to countries where they will not get a fair trial because they are foreigners? (Friday October 18, 2002 The Guardian - Stephen Jakobi Director Fair Trials Abroad )
The European arrest warrant, central to the Extradition Bill, which was published in June and replaces formal extradition procedures with a fast-track process between EU countries, has raised concerns among civil libertarians. Some have suggested that it may open the door to the arrest and swift extradition of a British subject to a member state, followed by onward extradition with equal dispatch and lack of legal constraints, to a third country. Undoubtedly the 60-day surrender provisions will bring the much-needed benefit of an end to the lengthy detention in custody of those charged with specified serious crimes awaiting extradition to another member state. (24 Sep 2002 Times)
A secret EU-US agreement is being drawn up by EU governments on issues ranging from extradition to undercover police operations in a move, which has huge implications for individual rights and liberties. This draft agreement is going to be discussed in depth for the first time at the Informal Meeting of EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Copenhagen on 13 September, where John Ashcroft, the US Attorney General, will also take part. (EUobserver.com 4/9/02)
THE European Union has been accused of carrying out a "Christmas Coup" by slipping through a set of draconian anti-terrorist measures on Dec 27, when nobody was paying attention. New laws should not be confused with the EU's anti-terrorist package, agreed in principle by EU justice ministers on Dec 6 after weeks of negotiations and public debate. That package is not yet law. It will have to go through a legislative process in each EU state, and faces a "scrutiny reserve" in several parliaments - precisely because the material is deemed so controversial. It also contains safeguards to protect civil liberties. The "Christmas Coup" measures became law instantly in Britain without the need for parliamentary debate. They went through under a process known as "written procedure". The manoeuvre was brought to light by the civil liberties group Statewatch, which has accused the EU of "declaring war on democracy under the guise of a war on terrorism". It says the "Christmas Coup", which was presented as a minor tidying-up exercise, in fact covers the gamut of terrorist activity and asylum policy, circumventing the political process and parliamentary oversight - either at Westminster or Strasbourg. Furthermore, it changes the legal language, eroding safeguards added after protests by civil rights groups to ensure that legitimate protest movements do not get caught in an anti-terrorist dragnet. For example, it requires governments to crack down on "passive" support for terrorism, a vague catch-all term that was not in the main EU anti-terrorist package. The new laws also require EU states to create police and intelligence files on every one of the 70,000 to 80,000 people a year claiming political asylum. At the moment, such files are created only if there is a tip-off or reason for concern. (A Evans-Pritchard Daily Telegraph 19/01/2002)
The definition of terrorist group was agreed to be "a structured group of more than two persons, established over a period of time and acting in concert to commit terrorist acts." The agreement defined "terrorist act" as intentional acts, which may seriously damage a country or an international organisation, intimidating a population, compelling a Government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation. The offences are divided into eleven categories including hostage taking, seizure of aircraft, supply or use of weapons, causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, disrupting the supply of water, participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group. (EUobserver 28/12/01)
The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on 6-7 December reached "political" agreement on the Framework Decision on combating terrorism. The proposed measure had been extensively criticised by civil society groups (see: earlier report) because the original proposal from the European Commission was so widely drawn as to embrace trade union and protests and it had been hoped that the final text would include an explicit exclusion of normal democratic activity. However the final press release from the Council of Ministers meeting says that the agreed measure is a "balance" between the needs to combat terrorism and legitimate activities like trade union and anti-globalisation protests - which is a signal to read the text carefully as the former will always triumph over the latter. The final text has a "Declaration" attached saying that protests and other political activities would not be covered by the definition of terrorism. However, a "Declaration" is not binding and has no formal legal force. What is critical is the text on the definition of terrorism. Article 1: Terrorist offences now reads as follows. Each EU member state has to take measures to ensure that terrorist offences: "include intentional acts, by their nature and context, which may be seriously damaging to a country or to an international organisation, as defined under national law, where committed with the aim of: (i) seriously intimidating a population, or (ii) unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or to abstain from performing any act, or (iii) destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation" and Article 1.e (Art 3.f in the Commission draft) now reads, where the above would result in: "causing extensive damage to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on a continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to put in danger human lives or produce considerable economic loss" The inclusion of "a fixed platform located on a continental shelf" is new and could embrace the occupation of the "Brent Spa" oil platform by Greenpeace. (Statewatch 12/12/01)
A group of lawyers has spontaneously initiated a "European Appeal" against introducing a new, broad definition of "terrorism" which would seriously threaten democratic rights and the "freedom of association, the right to strike and freedom of expression". The Europe-wide protest has so far been signed by 100 lawyers from 12 countries. (Euobserver.com 12/12/01)
RACISM and xenophobia would become serious crimes in Britain for the first time, carrying a prison sentence of two years or more, under new proposals put forward by Brussels yesterday. Holocaust denial or "trivialisation" of Nazi atrocities would be banned, along with and participation in any group that promotes race hate. The plans, drafted by the European Commission, define racism and xenophobia as aversion to individuals based on "race, colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin". Ordinary crimes would carry heavier penalities if they are motivated in any way by racism or xenophobia, or if the culprit is carrying out "professional activity", such as a police officer. Some of the crimes listed are, broadly speaking, offences under British law already, such as public incitement to violence. But the list also a covers a wide range of activities that sometimes fall into the sphere of protected political speech, such as "public insults" of minority groups, "public condoning of war crimes", and "public dissemination of tracts, pictures, or other material containing expressions of racism of xenophobia" - including material posted on far-Right internet websites. It was not clear yesterday how the law would affect radical Islamic groups that openly promote anti-Semitic and anti-Christian views. Nor was it clear how it would apply to political parties opposed to mass immigration, such as Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, and the Danish People's Party, all of which have become serious political forces. The law could potentially cover many stand-up comedians, and even Anne Robinson, who, during an appearance on BBC television this year, described the Welsh as "irritating". The proposals, which will require the unanimous backing of all 15 states, are aimed at ending the patchwork of different laws across the European Union and establishing a common definition that can be used by all judges. The commission appears to have adopted the most restrictive code - Germany's - as the basis for the rest of the EU. (Daily Telegraph 29/11/01)
In the Anti-Terrorism Bill clause 109 effectively allows Ministers to pass through as a Statutory Instrument, secondary legislation, rather than a Bill, primary legislation, any measure agreed at the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council that always works in secret. The effect of giving ministers the power to introduce justice and home affairs legislation by SI is as follows: Only 90 minutes is allowed in the scrutiny committee to consider an order; Orders are usually only considered in the Commons' scrutiny committee and often the House of Lords scrutiny committee is excluded; There is no consultation with interested parties during the passage of a SI; No amendments are allowed; The procedure will be used, said the minister Ms Eagle, for urgent law on such subjects as mutual legal assistance, trafficking in people, police co-operation and fast-track extradition. (BBC PM News 28/11/01) The Commons Select Committee on European Legislation is supposed to scrutinise all Brussels proposals on behalf of Parliament. It has been treated with contempt not only by Brussels but also by Ministers and government departments. In 1995 the Committee was expected to give blind clearance to 42 important pieces of Brussels legislation without an official text. This year, so far, there were 75 similar instances. Government departments, such as Trade and Industry, Treasury and the Foreign Office have taken an inordinate amount of time to reply to the Scrutiny Committee, sometimes sending their advice to the wrong address. Our ministers have taken decisions in the Council of Ministers without obtaining scrutiny clearance from the Committee, even failing to inform the Committee afterwards. (Independent 20/8/96). The Committee receives about 400 EU documents a year and only has time to look in detail at about 80 of them. (FT 24/11/96).
Belgian authorities have been accused of refusing to co-operate entirely against terrorism, as they have been denied FBI access to crucial evidence in their inquiry into the European network which is considered to have strong links with Osama bin Laden. Washington needs Belgium to hand over names and phone numbers found when they arrested two men after terrorists attacks in September, and according to the New York Times one of them was recruited as a suicide bomber for an attack on the American Embassy in Paris. "Belgium signed an agreement to co-operate with America but we're certainly not seeing that kind of partnership yet," said one US official. (EUobserver.com 18.10.2001)
A FARMER who leads Polish opposition to the European Union was jailed for 16 months on slander charges in Gdansk yesterday. Andrzej Lepper said President Aleksander Kwasniewski was "a loafer". (Electronic Telegraph 3/5/01)
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, we find the death penalty has been re-introduced: (Article 2 footnote 1 - Right to life) "1 Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law." Thus not only is the death sentence re-introduced but the nature of the crime is not defined. A person may therefore be executed for anything whatsoever, as long as the offence is defined as a capital one. In a corrupt, unaccountable regime, such as the EU collective despotism, clearly legislation will be framed at the whim of the Commission. All dictatorships are notoriously paranoid and neurotic. The next outcome of the Convention is as bad. "2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." Thus a person may be legally killed in avoiding arrest for stealing a pound of bananas or even depending on the progress of legislation, for selling a pound of bananas. The nature of the offence is again not defined, so the crime may indeed be so ordinary, as it was in the past when stealing a loaf of bread or a horse was a capital offence. The riots or insurrections may of course be anti-EU. (Personal posting S M D 27 April 2001)
ROME, April 19 Italy breathed a sigh of relief today upon learning that the country's highest court of appeal had ruled that influence-peddling is not a crime. The only punishable offense, the judges decided, is overstating one's power to exert influence. "Essentially, the judges are saying what everybody in Italy believes: It is not a crime, as long as you do it well," Franco Ferrarotti, an Italian sociologist said of the Wednesday ruling on "raccomandazione," the Italian custom of seeking and receiving special treatment from people in power, or close to it. "This is our version of the Protestant ethic," Mr. Ferrarotti said. "When a favor works successfully, it ceases to be a crime and becomes a work of art." Skepticism about the merits of meritocracy in Italy is widespread and may be one reason the court overruled the conviction of Mario Campana, 57, the director of a civil court in Potenza, in southern Italy, who was jailed in October for having promised to "put in a good word" to expedite the legal proceedings of an impatient plaintiff. As evidence, the prosecutors showed that Mr. Campana received 88 pounds of fish in return for his assistance proof, perhaps, of squid pro quo. The judges decided that Mr. Campana had not misrepresented his ability to do a friend a favor, since he not only could, but did, and therefore, was not at fault. "The law punishes the false boast of being able to exert influence, and not the real traffic of influence," their ruling explained. (New York Times 20/4/01)
According to Ronald Noble, the Secretary General of Interpol, police in Europe will be powerless to prevent counterfeit euros flooding Europe when the currency is introduced next year. Why? Because Europol is such a secretive organisation and having the strictest data protection laws in the world, is unable to share data with Interpol or any other police force. Interpol says that most counterfeiting will take place outside the EU and they have no idea how investigations outside the EU can be conducted. Mr Noble gives the following hypothetical example: "A country not in the EU is counterfeiting the euro. Europol finds out about it. It gets the counterfeiter's name, his company and associates. Europol does not have an agreement on such data with Interpol. It cannot send that information to us - or any country outside the EU without such an agreement - and there is no time to make one before the euro comes in. So when the euro is circulated, we're going to see large quantities of counterfeit currency, with police officers handcuffed and unable to investigate. The euro's value will go down instead of up." (Sunday Telegraph 25/2/01)
The EU's anti-fraud office is itself coming under criticism. German newspapers report that commissioners have been preventing the German prosecutor from cleaning out tainted staff. A report last year said that it was "perpetuating the methods and structures" of the old office and had failed to break free of political control. The European Parliament said it was being used as a "shunting yard for commission officials". Its defenders say it is finding its feet, doubling its staff and taking on competent prosecutors. (Daily Telegraph 24/2/01)
Sweden called on the European Union to create a united crime policy that would encompass prevention as well as direct action against crime, a statement from the Swedish EU presidency said. "The time has come to create political unity within the EU for a common clearly defined crime prevention programme," Swedish Justice Minister Thomas Bodstroem said. (STOCKHOLM, Feb 21, 2001 AFP)
State prosecutors informed the German parliament on Friday that they were to start an formal investigation of Joschka Fischer, the foreign minister, into suggestion that he may have committed perjury at the murder trial of a terrorist and a former fellow radical in January. Mr Fischer, the controversial but popular leader of the Green party, stands accused of making false statements while under oath about his association with a terrorist suspect Hans-Joachim Klein in the 1970s. Mr Fischer is entitled to immunity from prosecution as a member of parliament. (Financial Times February 16 2001) Further controversy has been aroused because, contrary to another of Fischer’s statements, it has now been revealed that he attended a PLO conference in Algeria in 1969. Mr. Fischer had denied having visited any Arab countries at this time. Many German politicians feel that it is impossible for a man to be foreign minister who in the 1960s worked with an organisation then dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. Mr. Fischer’s PLO connection is interesting beca use the OPEC attack for which Klein has been convicted was also organised by a Palestinian group, just as other German terrorist attacks in this period were specifically anti-Israeli. (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 20th February 2001) (European Foundation digest 21/2/01)
Rural magistrates courts in Wales and elsewhere were being closed because the Lord Chancellor's Department had ruled that to allow handcuffed prisoners to be seen in public equated to "torture" under the new Human Rights Act. (Sunday Telegraph 11/2/01)
The fact that lay people are brought into court to listen to the evidence and at the end are asked to give their considered verdict, absolves the Judiciary of responsibility when it has to consider the verdict and pass sentence. The defendant is either set free or is sentenced. Whatever the verdict the jury is absolved of it's responsibility to the court. The Jury and the Judiciary can go home without fear or favour. In the continental system, the responsibility resides wholly with the Judges. They alone have the responsibility and must thereafter go home and live in a state of protection. I would say, that the Judiciary in this country really do have something to think about before they partake in this transition of justice which will take place if Corpus Juris is introduced It is their lifestyle that will change. (Eurofaq posting CR 6/2/01)
The EU Commissionen recommends a punishment of six to ten years' prison for traffic in human beings, which is about twice as much as present Swedish law. The recommendation is part of the development towards a common attitude to crime and punishment in the EU. The Swedish government has been against such a development, but now supports it wholeheartedly, writes Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet. "It has to do with a learning process," says Dan Eliasson, political expert in the Swedish Department of Justice. "It is partly that we have come to know our partners better - in the beginning we over-intrepreted the demand for harmonization - and that we have come to feel more confident in the EU cooperation. When the EU had its great summit about crime in Tammerfors (in Finland) in the autumn of 1999, the hesitant group (Sweden, Britain and Denmark) demanded that there should be no talks about "harmonization" of penal codes, but only "greater concordance". But when, just before Christmas, the EU Commission put forward a proposal about traffic in human beings including a common maximum punishment in all countries, the only negative reaction came from Denmark, " says Eliasson according to Svenska Dagbladet. (EUobserver.com5/2/01)
Another Maastricht signatory arrested. The curse of Maastricht struck again this week as the former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, became the latest in a long line of politicians associated with the Maastricht treaty to have been involved in serious corruption scandals. The leading politicians at the time, Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand, have become embroiled in serious corruption scandals. Dumas is accused not only of the initial acts of corruption but also of obstructing the course of justice. The accusation against him says, "It has to be stated that, from failures to reply to culpable omissions, half-truths and outright lies, Mr. Dumas has demonstrated throughout the investigation a determination to dissimulate and hide the truth which has even led him into self-contradiction when presented with evidence." [Le Monde, 23rd January 2001] Other signatories of Maastricht include the Italian Foreign Minister, Gianni de Michelis, who served a two-year prison term for corruption, and the former prime minister of Italy, Giulio Andreotti, recently acquitted after a long trial in which it was alleged that he was associated with the Mafia. (European Foundation Digest 26/1/01). The former French foreign minister, Roland Dumas, who also served as President of the country’s constitutional court, was sentenced on Wednesday to 2 ½ years in prison and a fine of 2.5 million francs (£250,000) for extortion of public money in the Elf bribery scandal. (Le Figaro, 30th May 2001)
It is not every week that a German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor is called as a witness in the trial of a terrorist accused of murder. Fischer was in court in Frankfurt last week to testify on behalf of his old friend Hans-Joachim Klien. Klein, who was arrested after living under an assumed name for 20 years, is on trial for his part in a Red Army Faction attack on an OPEC meeting in Vienna in 1975, during which three people were murdered. As students in Frankfurt in the 70's, Klein and Fisher - wearing motor cycle helmets and carrying batons - took part in the fighting during various protests. Fischer lead a gang called PUTZ - the Proletarian Union for Terror and Destruction. Photographs from 1973 show Fischer beating a policeman to the ground with a baseball bat and then stamping on him. One policeman who was nearly killed in 1976 when a petrol bomb blew up in his car, accuses Fischer of attempted murder. Nowadays, Fischer is considered by the Euro-cognoscenti as "one of Europe's most original thinkers", a man committed to a federal Europe. This is why he has been invited by former British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, to address the German-British Forum on Wednesday. (Mail on Sunday 21/1/01)
The British Minister for Europe, Keith Vaz, is to face parliamentary questions about the 50 occasions on which he over-ruled official advice on visa applications. (Sunday Telegraph 19/3/01).
KEITH VAZ, the Minister for Europe, broke the MPs' code of conduct by refusing to answer questions from the parliamentary commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin, as she investigated a long list of complaints against him. (Ms Filkin has been effectively sacked - Ed) Mrs Filkin cut short the inquiry, leaving almost half the complaints against Mr Vaz hanging in the air. When her long delayed report was finally delivered to the Commons committee on standards and privileges, one of the 18 complaints against the minister was "upheld", nine were "not upheld" and eight were "not completed". The committee publicly reminded Mr Vaz: "All MPs have a duty to co-operate with the commissioner . . . Mr Vaz's behaviour was not in accordance with his duty of accountability under the code of conduct." The minister was also rebuked for failing to declare two payments from a London solicitor, Sarosh Zaiwalla. Evidence of their existence had turned up after Mr Vaz had told Mrs Filkin: "I have never requested, nor received, cash payments of any kind from Mr Zaiwalla." What the report emphatically did not do, however, was provide Mr Vaz with a clean bill of political health - far from it. The investigation into the remaining eight could not be completed after Mr Vaz refused to answer further questions from the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin. The extent of this obstruction clearly infuriated both the committee and Mrs Filkin, hence the highly critical tone of their findings. Not only did Mr Vaz fail to provide adequate information and answers, so did many of his associates, friends and relations. Among the matters highlighted in the report were: the "inconsistent and unsatisfactory" evidence concerning a larger sum of cash, which Mr Zaiwalla claimed he had given to two unnamed strangers said to represent a charity with which Mr Vaz was connected, but for which no receipt was forthcoming; what Mrs Filkin termed Mr Vaz's "especially troubling" lack of co-operation regarding Mapesbury Communications, and his unwillingness "to provide details of the expenditure and income" of this company "when it was he who set it up and its officers from its inception until the present date have been mainly members of his immediate family"; All in all, it is not a pretty picture that the report paints, either of Mr Vaz or of some of his chums. But the latter, at least, are not members of Parliament, whereas Mr Vaz is. But his response to the accusations, and to the investigation, was seriously wrong. Mr Vaz has shown by his conduct towards Mrs Filkin in particular, but also the committee, that he is not the sort of man who should be in any government. (Daily Telegraph 13/3/01)
ELIZABETH FILKIN, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is, as we report today, set to investigate the most serious charges yet levelled against Keith Vaz, the embattled Minister for Europe. Ms Filkin, who already has a voluminous dossier on Mr Vaz, must decide whether a series of donations given to the Leicester East MP for his election campaign were handled in a manner compatible with parliamentary regulations and the law. At the very least, it is astonishing that Mr Vaz's constituency party officials and his agent have no recollections of the donations - apparently of £5,000 each - being paid into the local Labour Party's accounts. We know of these payments because Mr Vaz declared them in the Commons register of interests, doubtless to satisfy the donors themselves. But why this money did not go through the books remains mysterious. Last week, the Foreign Office was forced to concede that the minister had made "extraordinary" use of its offices for a meeting at which he persuaded an insurance company to settle a £175,000 claim by a restaurateur, Mr Amin Ali. Mr Ali is not one of Mr Vaz's constituents, but he is a generous Labour donor. His decision to withdraw from the purchase of a £900,000 house in central London is as suggestive of a change in political prospects as the price tag is astonishing for a man on his salary. (Sunday Telegraph 4/2/01)
PETER Mandelson may have been kicked out, but the cash-for-passports furore is still hanging around like a bad smell. The spotlight has already switched to Euro-minister Keith Vaz, who admits he too campaigned to win UK citizenship for the billionaire Hinduja brothers. Now we learn that Mandelson's Brazilian boyfriend had a two-year fling with the man who has just taken over the Hinduja PR operation. Mr Vaz's role will be part of an official inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond QC, set up by Prime Minister Tony Blair, as the row exploded on Wednesday. That probe must now be extended to include Howell James' links with ministers, if any. Mr Vaz, who describes himself as the leader of Britain's Asian community, has built a network of wealthy and influential contacts, including the Hinduja brothers. Indeed, they are so close that Mr Vaz allowed them to draft his letters to the Home Office asking for UK passports on their behalf. It is not the first time the barrister MP - known in his Midlands constituency as "Mr Vaseline", partly because of his oily charm and partly because of his name - has been at the centre of an official inquiry. Keith Vaz, Minister for Europe, under investigation by Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary commissioner for standards (Sun 26/1/01)
He is facing a new allegation that he offered to obtain a place on the honours list for a solicitor, Sarosh Zwailla. Ms Filkin is investigating reports that Mr Vaz took cash payments from Mr Zwailla, she is to examine the latest allegation. Mr Vaz is also under investigation by Ms Filkin over allegations that he accepted payments from a number of businessmen in his Leicester East constituency. One man claims he gave Mr Vaz £500 in cash for help with a planning application for a mosque. The Minister is also accused of trying to "obscure" a £5,000 donation he received from a company whose chief executive was later jailed for his part in the BCCI scandal. In the register of member's interests Mr Vaz makes mention of a payment from a similarly named company for help with the publication of a bulletin for the Asian community. (Sunday Telegraph 9/4/00) A key witness in the parliamentary investigation into Mr Keith Vaz has been threatened with legal and disciplinary action by the Mr Hall, the Labour Party's constituency chairman, over evidence he gave to Elizabeth Filkin. Senior Labour insiders fear Mr Hall could face a charge of contempt of Parliament for trying to intimidate a witness from withdrawing evidence from the Vaz enquiry. Mr Vaz has been keen to deny allegations first reported in the Daily Telegraph in February that he took a series of cash payments from businessmen in Leicester and London but failed to declare them in the House of Commons register of member's interests. (D Telegraph 21/5/00) Her findings are now being considered by the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee. (Sun 26/1/01)
REASON. By 5.30pm tonight, Thursday 21 September, SANITY (Subjects Against the Nice Treaty) activists had confirmed the delivery at magistrates courts across the UK of well over 200 statements drawing attention to the "clear and present danger" of treason being committed by the Prime Minister and others. "SANITY calls on all loyal subjects who object to the destruction of our constitution to add their voice to the outcry which started today and lay their own copies with their nearest magistrates court as soon as possible. If the final total runs into tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, so much the better", a spokesman said. "If you know a crime is likely to be committed it is your duty to report it. We now know there is a crime being planned." The website containing the suggested wording for the statement to be laid before magistrates has been receiving an ever-increasing stream of hits since it opened at noon yesterday. The web-site address is: www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/treasonact1795
THE European Court of Justice changed the political climate profoundly this week by ruling that the European Union can suppress criticism to protect its reputation. Keith Vaz, the Europe minister, dismissed the matter as a minor staff case involving Bernard Connolly, the British whistleblower, with no implications for ordinary EU citizens. But Mr Vaz mixes up two separate cases. One is a staff case, the other is a free speech case going far beyond the issue of whether Connolly broke his contract at the European Commission by writing The Rotten Heart of Europe. The court ruled that the Commission could restrict criticism that damaged "the institution's image and reputation", and that it could do so by resorting to a legal device used by fascist governments to suppress dissent in the 1920s and 1930s: "the protection of the rights of others". This ECJ ruling defies half a century of case law by Europe's other court, the non-EU Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as well as resurrecting the ancient offence of "seditious libel" banned by the House of Lords. The Human Rights Court has ruled repeatedly that governing bodies may not restrict criticism in such a way. Specifically, the term "protection of the rights of others" does not apply to public bodies. Last week's ruling shows that the ECJ (despite paying lip-service) does not consider itself bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by British lawyers after the Second World War to safeguard liberty in Europe. (Telegraph 10/3/01) Mr Vaz argues that even your Brussels correspondent "can ply his trade in complete safety". For how long? Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights declares that all freedoms and rights can be restricted to "meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union". The rights that can be thus restricted include not only free speech and the right to life, but also the right not to be punished by retroactive legislation, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the absence of double jeopardy (a provision of which Jack Straw wants to take advantage already). (Letter in Telegraph From: Bernard Connolly: 9 March 2001)
One of the judges on the European Court of Justice that convicted Bernard Connolly of " seditious libel " was the Belgian ex-Chief of Justice who freed Marc Dutroux, when only three years into a 13 year sentence for the rape & murder of two young girls. Dutroux went straight out & raped again. The minister was sacked only to re-emerge at the ECJ. The court has turned upon its head the European Charter of Human Rights that was set up to defend the citizen from the state. Connolly was convicted on the basis that he, a citizen, had infringed the "human rights" of the European Commission. (Frederick Forsythe BBC R 4 20/4/01)
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe. The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy. (Daily Telegraph 7/3/01) Bernard Connolly writes: Point 58 of the judgment, case C-274/99P (www.curia.eu.int) establishes in EU law the Star Chamber crime of "seditious libel". I was sacked by the Commission for "Publicly expressing an opinion contrary to a fundamental policy of the EU" and thereby "damaging the interests of the Commission" and "bringing the institution into disrepute". In effect, I was sacked for seditious libel. In Nazi Germany, the decree of 4 February 1933 authorized the prohibition of newspapers or public meetings that "abused, or treated with contempt, organs, institutions, bureaus or leading officials of the State" (a phraseology that is unpleasantly mirrored in the arguments of the Commission and the Court of First Instance in my case); it was an essential part of the apparatus of tyranny and state violence. The case has at least served the purpose of showing that the EU is being used as a way of suppressing the freedoms that are guaranteed within its individual Member States and thus that the very existence of the EU is inconsistent with the constitutional traditions and principles of most of its Member States in the period since democracy was established in them. (Bernard Connolly 7/3/01)
Bernard Connolly, author of a critical book about the Monetary Union, is not going to accept the EC Court's limitation of his freedom of speech. He is going to take the 15 EU member countries to the European Council's Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. The Court upheld the EU Commission's contention that it was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly because in 1996 he had taken leave of absence from his job in the Commission to write "the rotten heart of Europe - the dirty war for Europe's money". The case is going to be the first tug-of-war between two sets of human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights has existed since 1950, and has been ratified by nearly all EU member states. The European Court of Human Rights, created to uphold this convention, is situated in Strasbourg. Since the Nice Summit in December 2000, the EU has it's own set of EU Human Rights, embodied in the EU "Charter of Fundamental Rights". The EU Charter is merely a political statement and not law, even if the EC Court in Luxembourg has already pronounced the first judgments with reference to the Charter. The EU is not a country and consequently has not signed the European Convention on Human Rights. It follows that it is not possible to take the EU to the Human Rights Court. Instead, one must bring an action against all 15 EU member countries that have all signed the Convention. "Attempts have been made to bring actions against the 15 countries, and that has not been successful," says Bernard Connolly to Danish weekly Detny Notat. "But things have changed because the EU has changed. The EU Charter is an attempt to push the European Court of Human Rights into the background, and it is understandable that the Strasbourg Count finds this development unpleasant." Bernard Connolly continues: "the EC Court does not think that anything could be above it - and that is the reason why it behaves so badly. We want to give the Court of Human Rights an opportunity to show that the Convention of Human Rights is above the internal rules of the EU." Mr Connolly adds that Article 52 of the EU Charter will be a key target. Article 52 says that a limitation of rights is admissible "if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union". (EUobserver.com 26/3/01)
Criticism of the European Union by an employee is akin to blasphemy and could be restricted without violating freedom of speech, according to an opinion issued by the Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice (in case C-274/99P). Most states, including Britain, allow abridgement of free speech rights in the special case of religious blasphemy. (D Telegraph 29/10/00). (The Advocate General's judgment on blasphemy was overturned by the European Court of Justice which put in its place the crime of "seditious libel". See above). Mr Connolly argued that a landmark British case, Wingrove v United Kingdom, established that political speech could not be limited except in extreme circumstances of blasphemy. The Wingrove case involved a pornographic video showing St Teresa of Avila engaged in sexual acts. It went all the way to Europe’s other court, the non EU Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which ruled that the government could suppress the video, given the egregious offence to Christians, but also ruled that this did not give political authorities a license to restrict political speech. The advocate general turned this on its head, arguing that the blasphemy ruling implied a broader protection for the "rights of others" and, by extension, allowed governing bodies to take action to protect their reputation. The point was not made lightly. It was a central building block of the advocate general’ s argument that the EU can legitimately punish dissent. His legal claim should be seen in the context of next month’s Nice Treaty. Article 52 of the new Charter of Fundamental Rights authorises the EU to limit rights "where necessary" in the "general interest" of the EU. The European Court will decide what is "necessary", and what constitutes the "general interest". The Connolly case is the best indication we have of how the court will deploy that considerable power once the charter is formally proclaimed." (D Telegraph 11/11/00). The European Court of Justice ruled that the European Commission acted lawfully when it sacked economist Bernard Connolly, who was head of the unit responsible for the analysis of the European Monetary System between 1989 and 1996. (EUobserver.com 6/3/01)
The conclusions of the French presidency at the Biarritz summit last week noted an "interesting discussion" on how to make the "protection" of "European values" more effective using Article 7 of the treaty, which allows for the suspension of the voting rights of countries deemed not fully concordant with those "European values". It is perfectly conceivable that allowing free rein to newspapers criticising the EU, and thus branded "racist and xenophobic", could be regarded by the EU as an infringement of article 7. Is all this far-fetched? Worrying evidence that it is not was given on 19 October in the conclusions of the advocate-general of the European Court of Justice (sic) in case C-274/99 P. The advocate-general argued explicitly that the publication of my book about the ERM, "The Rotten Heart of Europe" (serialised by your newspaper in September 1995), was akin to the publication of a blasphemous work and that since punishments for blasphemy were permitted by the common law of England and by the European Convention on Human Rights, then punishments for offences against "Europe" were also permissible, notwithstanding supposed guarantees of free speech. (Letter to the Times by Bernard Connolly 22/10/00). " Moreover, the Advocate-General went on to say that the doctrine of the House of Lords in the case of Derbyshire County Council vs Times Newspapers in 1993 – the doctrine that states, and I quote: "It is of the highest public importance that any democratically-elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism" – had no foundation in or relevance for European law. " (Bernard Connolly, Bruges Group Conference, 4/11/00)
The European Court of Justice met on Tuesday to decide whether the European Union could restrict freedom of speech. The case involves Bernard Connolly, a British whistleblower who wrote The Rotten Heart of Europe after serving as a leading economist in Brussels. The European Commission tried to silence him. It was backed by the ECJ's lower court, the Court of First Instance, which ruled last year in a landmark case that "the general interest of the Communities" overrides freedom of speech. Now the issue has flared again. Connolly's lawyers argued this week in Luxembourg that this ruling gave Brussels the power to restrict hostile criticism and even punish offenders. They said it amounted to a raison d'etat claim of absolutism that violated the European Convention of Human Rights. The convention was drafted after the Second World War - largely by British lawyers - to check authoritarian government and to make it impossible for abusive regimes to suppress human rights by claiming raisons d'etat. The case is regarded as significant because Article 50 of the EU's new Charter of Fundamental Rights states in almost identical language that the rights of EU citizens can be suspended in pursuit of the "general interests of the Union", whatever those may be. The ECJ's 11 Euro-judges in this case will rule on whether the EU has given itself the power to limit political freedoms. The opinion will be written by Judge Melchior Wathelet, best known as the Belgian justice minister who bungled the Dutroux paedophile affair.( Daily Telegraph 16th September 2000)
Bernard Connolly said from the floor at the Great European Debate on Thursday 15 July 1999 that the EU is planning it making it illegal "to slander the EU". It was proposed in the EP about a year ago. Nothing has yet materialised about this but he expected it to appear in due course. He also said, "the right to a fair trial may be overridden in the interests of the Community". (Eurofaq postings 17/7/99)
Across western and
eastern Europe upholders of the law have found themselves accused of being
lawbreakers and in some cases suspicion has turned to proved fact. Transparency
International, an independent organisation which produces an annual
"corruption index" believes that Italy is more corrupt than the
African state of Botswana and that Greece is more corrupt than Namibia. In
Italy, senior judges are openly accusing Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of
interfering with the workings of the courts to try to escape being convicted
himself in three ongoing corruption trials. In Germany, former Chancellor Helmut
Kohl blatantly behaved as if he were above the law by admitting he had received
unlawful political donations for many years, but refusing to give details to
investigating prosecutors. Transparency International has highlighted what it
says are disturbingly high levels of corruption in most of the central and east
European states. (BBC
News 15 January, 2002)
|
Transparency International index of international and national corruption- 2000. Ranking out of 91 countries. |
2001 ranking |
|
1 FINLAND |
1 |
|
2 DENMARK |
2 |
|
3 SWEDEN |
6 |
|
9 NETHERLANDS |
8 |
|
10 UNITED KINGDOM |
13 |
|
11 LUXEMBOURG |
9 |
|
15 AUSTRIA |
15 |
|
17 GERMANY |
20 |
|
19 IRELAND |
18 |
|
20 SPAIN |
22 |
|
21 FRANCE |
23 |
|
23 PORTUGAL |
25 |
|
25 BELGIUM |
24 |
|
35 GREECE |
42 |
|
39 ITALY |
29 |
A civil servant in the European Union's executive Commission has filed a complaint after the deposed spokesman of its President Romano Prodi was transferred to a top job in the organisation. President of the European Civil Service Federation, Loek Rijnoudt, said on Wednesday he complained to the Commission because he would have liked to apply himself for the job given to former Commission spokesman Ricardo Levi. He said the appointment, announced in April, had bypassed normal procedures. The way it was done tarnished the executive's reputation, at a time when it was trying to secure a cleaner image after the resignation of the entire Commission in March 1999 amid allegations of cronyism and corruption. (BRUSSELS, Aug 2, 2000 Reuters)
Will Valenciennes become the seat of Eurojust, the future European magistracy? That is in any case the wish of the deputy mayor of the city of lacemakers, Jean-Louis Borloo, who has suggested to the minister of justice and the president of the European Parliament that this judicial body instituted at the European Council of Tampere, in Finland, be hosted there. This European Magistracy; "One of the priorities of the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union" according to Elisabeth Guigou, Justice Minister, could find a home in the several thousand square metres of the old Hospital of the Hainaut, in Valenciennes. Eurojust would be the instrument which put judicial cooperation between European states on the level of that which is, already, the cooperation between police. This structure would give the countries of the Union an efficacity and legitimacy to fight against organised crime, or to resolve matters divided up between different states. In fact, the European magistracy, composed of a prosecutor general and of national prosecuters named by each of the member states, would have the task of harmonising the criminal statutes in force in the different countries so as to creat that common judicial space desired for a very long time. An area where justice would be the same for all, and where the equality before the law of all citizens would become a reality. (Voix du Nord, Tuesday 25th July, 2000)
Plain clothes detectives who spot known criminals in the street will need written permission to summon other officers to monitor the suspect’s behavior, under new rules governed by the European Convention on Human Rights. If the regulations are not followed, any prosecution will automatically fail, even if the officers witness a blatant crime. (Sunday Telegraph 23/1/00)
Industry groups complain that national courts can only give judgments on points of European law if the case involves a clear-cut breach of the EU treaty. Also the ECJ refuses to accept referrals from national courts unless firms or citizens themselves have already faced legal proceedings for breaking the domestic laws in question. "If you are being told to break the law in order to establish your right to go to the ECJ, then something fishy is going on", said one Brussels-based industry lawyer. The Commission’s procedure for handling infringements is seen as one if its Achilles heels, amid increasing complaints over its failure to deal with cases within a reasonable time frame. (European Voice 2/3/00)
A justification used by Jack Straw the Home Secretary for the Football (Disorder) Bill is that it simply brings our law into line with the Germans. A police constable can detain a person for four hours if he thinks the person might be a football hooligan. This can be extended to 6 hours by a senior police officer who can also confiscate the suspect’s passport. (BBC R 4 Yesterday in Parliament 25/7/00)
When the Human Rights Act comes into force in October 2000, anything our elected representatives chose to do will come with the huge caveat: "Providing the judges agree". The civil rights group Liberty published a list of areas in which domestic legislation violates the convention. These include great chunks of Conservative criminal justice legislation. For example, rules that prohibit courts from granting bail to defendants in cases where they have already been convicted of rape, murder or manslaughter are likely to breach the Human Rights Act. Jack Straw’s new anti-social behavior orders and child curfew orders, sex offender orders, decisions about the release of life sentence prisoners could also be up for grabs. Ministers have made it clear that judges will need to reflect changing social attitudes and the changes in the circumstances of society. It is not the job of judges to respond to public opinion, nor are they particularly good at doing so. That is the job that should be left to democratically accountable MPs. When the Human Rights Act come into force, judges will be drawn into the political affray. (D Telegraph 18/2/00)
The Association of Chief Police Officers has decided to relax the standard 16 point standard for fingerprint identification because it is done in Europe. (BBC R4 File on Four 4/7/00)
The Commission is now proposing to take a direct hand in enforcement, and acquire the powers to impose penalties for non-compliance, hitherto reserved for Member States. Under the somewhat opaque title of "fast track enforcement", the Commission proposed that, where non compliance with food safety law was observed, officials could deduct monies from subsidies that would otherwise have been paid out of EU funds, leaving Member States to make up the shortfall, which would, no doubt, amount to millions of pounds. But this is only one half of the equation. When it comes to knowing whether the EU laws have actually been enforced, the commission often professes to being totally in the dark. It has to rely on complaints from aggrieved individuals, where the standard of evidence required is so high that most complaints founder long before they get to the Courts. To remedy this, the Commission is proposing to create its own "police forces", to inspect operations in the various Member States, which will make reports directly to Brussels, on which action can be taken. It has already built a cadre of inspectors which was given a formal identity in 1997 and the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), with the new head office in Dublin. With 150 inspectors, the remit of the FVO has now expanded to cover all food operations, and their reach extends even to the small rural butcher in the furthest reaches of the UK, where they may be seen accompanying British officials during their routine inspections. What is even more sinister is that a massive expansion in the force is now proposed, with manpower levels set to increase, initially to 600. When that is tied in to the proposals for direct penalties, it can be seen that we will shortly be facing an army of Euro-inspectors who can impose their will by extracting massive fines when their commands are not instantly obeyed. By this means, with the precedent established for inspection of food operations by Eurocrats, and the imposition of direct penalties, it is no means fanciful to expect the same system to apply to the growing volume of environmental laws, to health and safety provisions and even trading standards. Put simply, the obscure and secretive Dublin-based organisation which is the FVO is a Trojan Horse. It is the precursor to a massive system of central enforcement and, before too long, the streets will be shaking under the boots of the Euro-inspectors. Watch this space. (Dr. Richard North Wednesday 8 March 2000) http://www.alma-services.co.uk/cannon/TOC_RichardNorth.html
Most British-derived countries have moved closer to the American model of an interventionist Supreme Court and have discarded, with astonishing rapidity, such tiresome concepts as the time-honoured principle of judicial impartiality. The way North America's elected representatives talk about court decisions is the way the British talk about European decisions. Awfully sorry, old boy, but resistance is useless. The European Union is, of course, more than a court, but it's essentially engaged in the same business - advancing a particular agenda while insulating it from such tedious concepts as the will of the people. Thus the EU is currently putting the squeeze on Austria over the participation of Jorg Haider's Freedom party in the new coalition. The members of the government were all popularly elected and have a majority in parliament. By comparison, the European Commission of appointed apparatchiks has no democratic oversight and is simply the result of backroom deals. Nonetheless, they've decided to try to nullify the results of the Austrian election - or at least to negate the 29 per cent of votes they find so disagreeable. Reading the interview with Herr Haider in the Weekly Telegraph (the paper's overseas edition), I was startled by Dominic Lawson's second question: 'What is your view of the action taken by the FU (sic) states to cut off all bilateral political talks with Austria?' The FU states? I assumed at first it must be a printing error but, thinking about it, I'm not so sure Lawson isn't right. The West is in thrall to a great FU movement that's been growing for 30 years. You're one of the 90 per cent of the American people who opposed court-mandated 'busing'? FU! You're a New Hampshire voter and you're happy with your tax structure the way it is? FU! You're a white Canadian who likes to hunt and you don't see why natives alone should have been given (as a court recently decreed) the right to kill as many moose and deer as they want? FU! You're an Austrian and you'd like the right to choose your elected representatives? FU!(The Rise of the FU Movement Mark Steyn London SPECTATOR, Mar-4-2000)
THE Paris prosecutor yesterday recommended that the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas should stand trial for his alleged role in a multi-million pound corruption case involving the scandal-hit Elf Aquitaine oil company. Jean-Pierre Dintilhac said that M Dumas's long-term mistress, Christine Deviers-Joncour, should also appear in court along with five others, including the former chairman of Elf, Loik Le Floch-Prigent. M Dumas, 76, a close friend of the late president François Mitterrand, has indignantly denied any wrongdoing and claims he is the victim of a judicial plot. He was formally placed under investigation in April 1998 for "complicity and illegally receiving company funds". Behind the accusations is the claim that he persuaded Elf to pay a total of £6.4 million to Mme Deviers-Joncour in unjustified salaries, expenses and hidden commissions. The money was spent supporting a sumptuous way of life and the purchase of a £1.4 million flat in Paris. The prosecutor's 80-page report said that he was satisfied that M Dumas knew that the money from which he profited, via his mistress, had a fraudulent origin. M Dumas has been on paid leave from his position at the head of the Constitutional Council, France's highest court, since last March. Fellow judges said he had no intention of resigning. The prosecutor's recommendations will now be studied by the investigating magistrates, Eva Joly and Laurence Vichnievsky, to decide whether the seven should stand trial. (11/2/00 Electronic Telegraph). Finally, the pressure has increased on the president of France's constitutional court, Roland Dumas - the former foreign minister and Mitterrand crony who signed Maastricht - to resign. Dumas has been summoned to appear in court on corruption charges. His lawyers have also lost an appeal against this summons. Suspicion of corruption has been hanging over Dumas for a year or so, especially since his former mistress spilled various juicy beans. [Le Figaro, 11th February 2000]
THE scandal over the corrupt use of funds from France's Elf-Aquitaine oil company claimed a new victim yesterday when it emerged that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who served as Finance Minister until last November, was facing charges of fraudulently receiving money from the company. The Socialist politician, who stepped down over an unrelated fraud investigation, was placed under formal examination on Wednesday over £19,000 in alleged payments by Elf to his secretary, according to sources. Some two dozen prominent businessmen and French politicians from both Left and Right already face charges in the five-year investigation by two Paris examining judges into the abuse of funds in the early 1990s by the former state-owned oil company. However, M Strauss-Kahn was the first member of the Government of Lionel Jospin to be implicated in the biggest sleaze affair to engulf the French political world in the past decade. (The Times 29/1/00)
The European Commission is to take both the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank to court over their refusal formally to recognise the new European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF) It is the first time the Commission has taken legal action against another EU institution. The Commission argues that the creation of the fraud office with a remit across all EU institutions is a vital step towards restoring public confidence following the corruption scandals that brought down the Santer Commission. But while neither the ECB nor the EIB objects to working with OLAF on an informal basis, they insist formal recognition would threaten their autonomy and thus damage their credibility in the markets. Michelle Schreyer, Commission for fraud prevention said: "while agreeing with the independence of the ECB and the EIB, the Commission has the duty to ensure the implementation of European anti fraud law" (Times Business News 13.1.2000)
Internal exile is not unique to the USSR - in Italy it has existed since Fascist times and is called "confino", it means being sent to a remote country location and forced to live there. (TDErikson - Eurofaq posting 4/1/00)
Legally convicted criminals are supervising Law and Order in the EU - they are elected representatives of the controversial Forza Italia party. Several members of the enigmatic Forza Italia party, owned by media magnate Silvio Berlusconi, once sat in the dock on bribery and other charges. The Forza Italia MEPs owe their places on the European Parliament's Interior Committee to the German Christian Democrats. The Berlusconi troupe, which is represented by 22 MEPs in the Strasbourg Parliament, is supposed to be given even more weight by becoming respectable members of the European Peoples Party, the umbrella organisation of the Christian Democratic parties in Europe. 'Cavalier' Berlusconi, a MEP since the European elections in June, is himself a member of the European Parliament's Interior Committee. At the end of October, a Milanese court of appeal declared the charges against the media tycoon for illegal party financing to have lapsed, but confirmed massive corruption nonetheless: around ten million Marks are supposed to have been paid by his companies to a secret Swiss bank account for the benefit of the former socialist party leader, Bettino Craxi. Under the immunity granted by parliamentary privilege, Berlusconi and his people on the Interior Committee are voting on, for example, new powers for Europol, guidelines against money laundering and on an agreement for legal aid. The TV tycoon has put four Forza Italia MEPs on the European Parliament's Culture Committee, where the future European media laws will be dealt with. Forza Italia co-founder and Berlusconi's Sicilian Governor, MEP Marcello Dell'Utri, is also on the Interior Committee. The lawyer and former manager of Berlusconi's advertising company Publitalia has been convicted in Italy of falsified accounting and sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment, a further prosecution for falsifying balance sheets is still going on. The case against him, on account of presumed co-operation with the Mafia, will be held in Palermo. According to witness statements in Italy, MEP Marcello Dell'Utri acts as the contact person with the Cosa Nostra. According to the accusations of penitent former Mafiosi, the Sicilian organisation is also supposed to have financed Berlusconi's early property businesses. Yet it was precisely the convicted criminal Dell'Utri who the E.V.P. (European Peoples Party) grouping wanted to make number two on the Interior Committee. (Der Spiegel, November 29 1999)
The French government's apparent breach of European Community law in relation to the importation into France of British beef raises an issue that far transcends the particular dispute. Under the EC legal order, the national courts of member states are also Community courts. As such they are legally bound to apply EC law, if necessary in priority to national law. If that is so, EC law creates "directly effective rights" such as affected individuals from any member state can invoke before the French courts; and the French courts are bound to provide effective protection of such rights. There is a perception among English lawyers working in this general area that in practice effective interim protection of EC law rights is not available from the French courts. If that perception is correct, then an essential element in the EC legal order is absent in France, and France is therefore in breach of a fundamental Treaty obligation in failing to remedy that defect. Any idea that member states are free to pick and choose what EC law obligations they will comply with would ultimately destroyed the Union. (FT letters 18/11/99)
George Staunton is a 78-year old veteran of the Second World War who lives in Liverpool. Early in the morning of last 9th June, which was polling day in the elections to the European Parliament, he admits to having gone out to encourage support for the United Kingdom Independence Party, which believes in withdrawal from the European Union. He put up several UKIP posters, and on the wall of a derelict commercial property painted the words: "Don't forget the 1945 War" and "Free Speech for England". Just as he was finishing his display, the Merseyside Police arrested Mr Staunton. He was charged with racially aggravated criminal damage under section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment or unlimited fine or both. But this is not an isolated act of power. It is the start of a persecution of the anti-EU movement. The British Establishment has decided to play the racist card. (11/7/99 Free Life Commentary). Article K1 of the Amsterdam Treaty calls for judicial co-operation between EU member states to combat "racism and xenophobia. The treaty also increases the powers of Europol, Europe's proto-FBI, which now has loosely defined authority to request investigations and participates in joint operations in cases of, again, "racism and xenophobia. There is now an industry of EU-funded organisations exploiting the guise of antiracism to discredit and, if possible, criminalise expressions of political resistance to Brussels. (Daily Telegraph 10/7/99)
Basildon butcher Mark Smith has told the French where they can stick their beef ban.He has given a two-finger salute to their continuing refusal to sell British beef. It is part of an all-out campaign at Smith's Butchers shop in the town centre to persuade shoppers to stick with British beef and boycott French goods.The South Walk store does not sell French beef and is refusing to sell French goods where practical. The police told him to remove his posters as he was "inciting trouble." (Basildon Echo 02/11/99)
The parents are young children who were allegedly raped and indecently assaulted two years ago in Brussels crèche owned by the European commission have appealed to the Belgian Prime Minister to speed up the investigation. The point out that the examining magistrate's application to question and MEP, made almost a year ago, has still not been processed by the Belgian authorities and presented to the European Parliament, which must decide whether or not to lift the members immunity. The frustration is largely directed at the commission, which the accused of failing to accept any responsibility for the running of the crèche, which is some contract to an outside company. MEPs, along with the staff committee which represents parents of children at EU crèches in schools, believes the commission should end the contract with the outside firm. A senior commission official insisted that there was no need for a swift decision, as the current contract is not run out until the end of July. (European Voice 15 April 1999). The committee of "wise men" whose report brought down Jacques Santer and his team may be asked to investigate the management and supervision of the European Commission's three crèches in Brussels. The impetus behind the move is coming from some of the parents of children at the Clovis crèche, after allegations that at least six were sexually abused over six month period two years ago. Two members of the crèche's staff have since been suspended and indicted on charges of rape and indecent assault. Parents of children at the crèche believe the allegations satisfy the Committee of Experts brief to investigate how the Commission awards contracts to outside organisations, recruits temporary staff and follows up complaints of mismanagement internally. Meanwhile the Commission has decided to extend the contract with the company managing the crèche from the end of July, despite requests from parents not to do so. (European Voice 27 May 1999) THE EU Ombudsman Jacob Söderman has roundly criticised the European Commission for dragging its heels after allegations of sexual abuse involving several children in one of its Brussels crèches were first raised more than two and a half years ago. Söderman says he has discovered "a prima facie evidence of maladministration" in the Commission's failure to put in place a system to investigate any similar incidents in the future. "Principles of good administration require that decisions are made within a reasonable time limit. The Commission, more than two years after the events, had not adopted an internal procedure for dealing with alleged cases of abuse within its crèches," he concludes. (European Voice 12/4/00)
In Commission (supported by Spain and the UK) -v- France "The Times" 11th December 1997 the ECJ were asked to rule on whether the French government's failure to control the protests of French farmers amounted to a breach of EC law on free movement of goods. A search of the EC Treaty will disclose no law authorising the ECJ to supervise policing. The ECJ did not take this course. It assumed power over policing by ruling that the French failings in policing the protests broke the rules of Community law on the free movement of goods. It ruled that the French shortcomings broke Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome, which states that "Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall, without prejudice to the following provisions, be prohibited between the Member States." Apparently, Article 30 deals not only with measures taken by governments, but also their responses to actions taken by others. However, Commission -v- France carries a two-fold message. It can be seen, once again, how the ECJ will manipulate, or endorse the manipulation of language to suit its' purpose, which is neither the enforcement of law nor the promotion of liberty, but rather the promotion of a political end - the union of the peoples of Europe. Further, and perhaps of greater short-term significance, it shows a further seizure of power by the central European government at the expense of the Member States. In this instance, the power seized is of particular importance, for the policing of a state has traditionally been seen to involve a complex balance which judges are ill suited to exercise. (Eurofaq posting 31/1/99 Dave Radlett). Collective action to put down threats to the single market are allowed by "Article 224 (of the European Treaty) that states that Member States shall consult one another with a view to taking in common the necessary steps to avoid the operation of the Common Market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in case of serious internal disturbances affecting public policy or the maintenance of law and order (ordre public), in case of war or serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out undertakings into which it has entered for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security".( Taken from the 1967 Command Paper 3301 entitled "Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Communities," presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty. May 1967, page 14, para 42 - Eurofaq posting Michael Burke 25/9/99)
European socialist ministers and parliamentarians have called for the four European Commission directorates-general handling development to be consolidated into one, and that there should be a single Commissioner too. In the beginning there was just one Commissioner responsible for development. But it was precisely because socialist ex-ministers and ex parliamentarians insisted on creating evermore new commission portfolios for themselves that the EC's management of aid is severely criticised today. (Letter to financial Times 1 June 1999)
EU Justice & Home Affairs ministers are planning to widen the scope of laws to combat money laundering. This would include the seizure of the proceeds of drug-related crimes and any offence with a four-year or more, prison sentence. (European 17/9/98)
Erroneous intelligence held on UK police computers can be used in EEC courts (C4 TV).
The EU Directive 91/308 on the Prevention of Money Laundering means you cannot open a bank or building society account, or National Savings, for a child without presenting a birth certificate (S Telegraph 19/2/95). Plans to widen EU laws against money laundering include identifying customers and reporting suspicious transactions in casinos, estate agents, auditors, and the legal profession. (Week in Europe 16/7/98). Banks and building societies are now asking for four items of identification including a driving licence, passport. This is proving impossible for people without these documents. (BBC R 4 August 99). The banks are complaining they have become the' jam in the sandwich' between the Treasury's desire to lower the barriers that deter people from opening bank accounts and the Home Office's determination to keep up its (i.e. the EU's) defences against money laundering. Officials have been irritated by evidence that people have been turned away because they cannot provide the usual forms of identification. Bank staff could face jail for complicity in money laundering if they did not take adequate precautions, but there was no clear guidance. (FT 24/9/99). The article does not mention Europe once, despite Europe being the source of these regulations. Interesting to note how the EU's money laundering rules: a) Discriminate against the "socially excluded" by making it much harder to open a bank account, thus keeping them away from banks and most 20th century financial transactions. b) Adding to the costs of the state by necessitating many social security benefits to continue to be paid over various counters, rather than through automated transfers. Another hidden cost of our membership of the EU. (Eurofaq posting J Spenser 27/9/99). Banks and building societies are planning to make it easier to open accounts after ministers attacked the industry for being too strict in applying rules aimed at preventing money laundering. The new rules will ensure potential customers are offered a choice of ways of proving their identity. But many banks blame the government for the problems customers face. Counter staff risk prosecution under the money laundering laws if they allow accounts to be opened without proof of identity. (FT 11/2/00)
Barristers will have no role in a future Europeanised legal system. (Private e-mail11/5/98)
The Justice Council plans to make it a criminal offence throughout the EU to participate in a criminal organisation. (CEC WE/45/97)
The removal of border controls in the EU has coincided in a rise in the activities of organised gangs and mafias that specialise in drug trafficking, prostitution, money laundering, arms and radioactive materials. This has been exacerbated by a lack of trust among police forces. Criminal networks benefit from the differences between different justice systems, says a Commission paper. The desire is to pool sovereignty in the areas of law enforcement and justice. (FT 2/2/98)
Affirmative Action. According to the Court, in the working world a male candidate will tend to be promoted even if a female candidate is equally qualified for the post in question. Certain deep-rooted prejudices and stereotypes as to the role and capacities of women in working life still persist. The Court concludes from this that priority given to equally qualified women - which is designed to restore the balance - is not contrary to Community law provided that an objective assessment of each individual candidate, irrespective of the sex of the candidate in question, is assured and that, accordingly, promotion of a male candidate is not excluded from the outset. (11 November 1997 Judgement of the Court of Justice of the EC in Case C-409/95)
International criminals are exploiting the removal of border controls to avoid customs duties worth billions of ECU's. With transit fraud goods, mainly cigarettes, are allowed to enter without customs duty on the assumption that they will be re-exported. They are actually sold in the EU without paying the duty. Archaic paper-based systems are unable to cope with 18m transit operations a year. (FT 21/2/97). Diversionary fraud is costing the UK taxpayer £1m a year. It is simply an artefact of the EU regulations. (BBC2 TV Money Programme 18/1/98). Anti-fraud proposals will require each consignment to be individually sealed. Commission officials will require transport companies is to have six figure codes describing the transit goods they are carrying, and separate papers detailing their value and what tax should be paid. The problem with this suggestion is that you can still miss-declare goods or not declare them at all. This is just a statistical tool for the Commission so they can better measure the flow goods. (European Voice 19/3/98)
International fraud in 1997 cost the EU up to £1.4bn a year according to a European Commission report. Fraudsters are taking advantage of different regulatory and monitoring regimes across the EU. Areas of concern include: computer abuse, banking frauds, counterfeiting, investment fraud, public sector fraud, confidence tricks, fraudulent bankruptcy, insurance fraud, smuggling and money laundering. The relaxation of border controls has opened up opportunities for fraudsters.( FT 24/4/97). The sum was less than in 1996 although there was an increase in the number of cases detected. (FT7/5/98)
International criminals are exploiting the removal of border controls to avoid customs duties worth billions of ECU's. With transit fraud, goods, mainly cigarettes, are allowed to enter without customs duty on the assumption that they will be re-exported. They are actually sold in the EU without paying the duty. Archaic paper-based systems are unable to cope with 18m transit operations a year. (FT 21/2/97). Diversionary fraud is costing the UK taxpayer £1m a year. It is simply an artefact of the EU regulations. (BBC2 TV Money Programme 18/1/98). ). Anti-fraud proposals will require each consignment to be individually sealed. Commission officials will require transport companies is to have six figure codes describing the transit goods they are carrying, and separate papers detailing their value and what tax should be paid. The problem with this suggestion is that you can still miss-declare goods or not declare them at all. This is just a statistical tool for the Commission so they can better measure the flow goods. (European Voice 19/3/98)