[ARTICLE 69D]

FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME:

BRITISH JUDICIARY MUST SUBMIT TO

EUROJUST INTERFERENCE, EU CRMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

& MASSIVE INTERVENTIONS IN PROSECUTING SERIOUS CRIME<= /span>

[ARTICLE 69D]

AMENDMENT TO: Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and t= he Treaty establishing the European Community (Lisbon, 13 December 2007)<= /span>

&= nbsp;

Policy Area:

Treaty= on the Functioning of the European Union, Part Three Policies and Internal Act= ions of the Union, Title IV – Area of Freedom, security and Justice, Chapt= er 4 – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Article 69D

Amendment:

Clause= 2, page 1, line 12, after ‘excluding’ insert –

&= nbsp;

‘= ;(i) Article 2, paragraph 67, inserted Chapter 4 and Ar= ticles 69A to 69E TEC (TFEU) relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters;= and

&= nbsp;

(ii)’.

&= nbsp;

Lisb= on Treaty: =

“JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

67) Articles 67 to 69 shall be repealed. The following Chapter 4 and Articles 69 A to 69 E shall be inserted. Articles 69 A, 69 B and 69 D shall replace the current Article 31 = of the Treaty on European Union.

"CHAPTER 4 JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS=

ARTICLE 69 D

1. Eurojust's mission shall = be to support and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious crime affe= cting two or more Member States or requiring= a prosecution on common bases, on the basis of operations conducted and information supplied by the Member States' authorities and by Europol.=

In this context, the European Parliament and the Council= , by means of regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine Eurojust's structure, operation, field of action and tasks. These tasks may include:

(a) the initiation of criminal investigations, as well as proposing the initiation of

prosecutions conducted by competent nation= al authorities, particularly those relating to

offences against the financial interes= ts of the Union;

(b) the coordination of investigations and prosecutions referred to in point (a);=

(c) the strengthening of judi= cial cooperation, including by resolution of conflicts of

jurisdiction and by close cooperation with= the European Judicial Network.

These regulations shall also determine arrangements for involving the European Parliament and national Parliaments in the evaluatio= n of Eurojust's activities.

2. In the prosecutions referr= ed to in paragraph 1, and without prejudice to Article 69 E, formal acts of judic= ial procedure shall be carried out by the competent national officials.”<= o:p>

Consolidated Treaty Article(s):

“Article 31 =

2. The Council shall encourage cooperation through Eurojust by:

(a) enabling Eurojust to facilitate proper coordination between Member States' national prosecuti= ng authorities;

(b) promoting support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in cases of seri= ous cross-border crime, particularly in the case of organi= sed crime, taking account, in particular, of analyses carried out by Europol;

(c) facilitating close cooper= ation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Netw= ork, particularly, in order to facilitate the execution of letters rogatory and the implementation of extradition reques= ts.”

&= nbsp;

Expl= anation:

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Eurojust is a European Union body established [in 2002 by a Council Decision of 28 February 2002] to facilita= te cooperation and coordination between the Member States competent judicial authorities when investigating and prosecuting “serious cross border crime, particularly in the case of organized crime.” Its remit is presently ruled by Articles 29 TEU which provid= es for closer cooperation between Member States through Euroj= ust and 31(2) which provides that the Council shall enable “Eurojust to facilitate proper coordination bet= ween Member States' national p= rosecuting authorities” promote “support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in case= s of serious cross border crime, particularly in the case of = organised crime, taking account, in particular, of an= alyses carried out by Europol” and facilitate “close cooperation betwe= en Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, particula= rly …. Article 3 of the Council Decision setting= up Eurojust provides for Eurojust&#= 8217;s objectives, which are to “stimulate and improve the coordination, between the competent authorities of the Member States, of investigations and prosecutions in the M= ember States …, to improve cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States …, to support othe= rwise the competent authorities of the Member = States in order to render their investigations and prosecutions more effective.” Eurojust competences cov= er the serious forms of crime and the offences within the Europol remit [as established in Article 2 of the Europol Convent= ion of 26 July 1995] such as terrorism, unlawful drug trafficking and other serious forms of international crime as well as other types of crime as mentioned in Article 4 of the Council Decision, such as computer crime, fraud and corrup= tion and any criminal offence affecting the European Community's financial interests, the laundering of the proceeds of crime, environmental crime, pa= rticipation in a criminal organisation. <= /span>

Under the terms of Lisbon, Eurojust has now had its remits and powers hugely increased. The Lisbon Treaty introduces Article 69D which increases Eurojust’= s remit and powers when compared to the present Ar= ticle 31(2) TEU. Article 69D define= s the “mission” of Eurojust’s which is to “<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial'>support and strengthen coordin= ation and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities = in relation to serious crime affecting two or more Member States or requiring a prosecution on common bases, on the basis of operations conducted and information supplied by the Member States' authorities and by Europol.̶= 1; Hence, it seems that the Eurojust’s manda= te is extended “as serious crime affecting two or more Member States or requiring a prosecution on common bases” is broader than “cases= of serious cross-border crime, particularly in the case of organised crime.”

This provision also provides that the European Parliament and the Council through the ordinary legislative proced= ure (co-decision) may adopt regulations, which are directly applicable in the Member States, determining “Eurojust’s structure, operation, field of action and tasks.” Such regulations wi= ll be adopted by QMV in the Council and shall also establish “arrangements = for involving the European Parliament and National Parliaments in the evaluatio= n of Eurojust’s activities.” The Lisbon = Treaty provides what Eurojust’s tasks may include. This list of already extensive pow= ers has increased massively. Neither can Member States veto proposals over: “= the initiation of criminal investigations, as well as proposing the initiation of prosecutions conduct= ed by competent national authorities, particularly those relating to offences against the financial interests of the Union, the coordination of investigations and prosecutions, the strengthening of judicial cooperation, including by resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction and by close cooperati= on with the European Judicial Network.” Presently, Eurojust acting as a College m= ay ask the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to undertake an investiga= tion or assert the prosecution of specific ac= ts even if such a request is not binding and the Member State is not obliged to act.

The Lisbon Treaty expressly provides = that Eurojust may have the power and the responsibil= ity to initiate criminal investigations and also the power to propose the initiati= on of prosecutions even though the prosecution would be conducted by the national authorities and according to Article 69 D (2) “formal acts of judicial procedure shall be carried out by the competence national official= s” without prejudice to the European Public Prosecutor.

This provision implies a major takeov= er of the responsibilities of national public prosecutors. In this way Eurojust tasks are to similar to the ones of the Euro= pean Public Prosecutor. There is a Declaration on Article 69 D(1) which states “The Conference considers that the regulations referred to in the sec= ond subparagraph of Article 69 D(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should take into account national rules and practices relati= ng to the initiation of criminal investigations” but it is not legally binding. Since this marks a takeover of major UK legal responsibilities, mo= stly notably through the empowerment of European judicial authorities in prosecu= ting serious crime above and beyond the powers of the British judiciary, this is= an area of significant concern which must be rejected by the UK Government.