EUROJUST is a judicial co-ordination unit composed of one national member (a prosecutor, magistrate or police officer) per Member State. As well as encouraging mutual assistance between judicial authorities of Member States, the aim is to combat serious forms of crime perpetrated by cross-border criminal organisations. It will intervene, for example, in cases analysed by Europol that call for immediate legal advice and assistance e.g. trafficking in human beings, terrorism, computer crime, money laundering and forgery. The UK’s Michael Kennedy is the President of Eurojust. Eurojust was officially inaugurated in The Hague, Netherlands on 29 April 2004. Since the Madrid Terrorist attacks and the European Declaration against Terrorism there has been calls for optimum and effective use of Eurojust by national authorities to improve its capacity in the fight against terrorism.

In 2001 the Commission brought forward a Green Paper designed to protect the financial interests of the Community with the establishment of a European Prosecutor. This was proposed as a response to the risk of fraud against the Community’s finances and the need to prosecute the "perpetrators of fraud affecting the financial interest of the European Communities".

Originally, the office of the European Public Prosecutor was to constitute an independent judicial authority, organised on a decentralised basis, with a deputy European Public Prosecutor in each Member State. The European Public Prosecutor would instigate proceedings in national courts for cases relating to offences directly affecting the Community’s financial interests.

The Constitutional Treaty of June 2004 makes express provision for the European Prosecutor and provides a legal basis for this body, which I will detail towards the end of my presentation.

Member States have expressed concerns about conflicts between a European Prosecutor and prosecutors of the Member States and the Law Society of England and Wales has consistently argued against the proposal for a European Public Prosecutor and my understanding is will continue to do so. The project appeared to have been left for a while, however now that there is a legal basis in the Constitutional Treaty, attention has focused again on this proposal. All Member States will have to agree to set up the office of the European Public Prosecutor.

Integrating crime prevention aspects and police co-operation have been key aims of developments in European Criminal Justice. Europol is the European law enforcement organisation which aims at improving the effectiveness and co-operation of the competent authorities in the Member States in preventing and combating terrorism, unlawful drug trafficking and other serious forms of international organised crime. The establishment of Europol was by agreement in the Maastricht Treaty on the European Union of 7 February 1992. Europol is based in the Hague in the Netherlands and started limited operations on 3 January 1994 in the form of the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU) fighting against serious drug criminal activity. Progressively other important areas of criminality were added. The Europol Convention was ratified by all Member States and came into force on 1 October 1998. Europol commenced its full activities on 1 July 1999. As of 1 January 2002 the mandate of Europol was extended to deal with all serious forms of international crime as listed in the Annex to the Europol Convention. Amongst other things Europol supports Member States by facilitating the exchange of information between Europol liaison officers who are seconded to Europol by the Member States as representatives of their national law enforcement agencies. They provide operational analysis and generate strategic reports and crime analysis on the basis of information and intelligence supplied by Member States or other sources. They provide expertise and technical support for investigations and operations carried out within the EU, under the supervision and legal responsibility of the Member State concerned.

Areas of co-operation:

• Preventing and combating terrorism

• Unlawful drug trafficking

• Trafficking in human beings

• Crimes involving clandestine immigration networks

• Illicit trafficking in radioactive and nuclear substances

• Illicit vehicle trafficking

• Combating the counterfeiting of the euro
• Money-laundering associated with international criminal activities.

Principal tasks

• Facilitate exchange of information between Member States

• Obtain, collate and analyse information and intelligence
• Notify the competent authorities of the Member States without delay of information concerning them and of any connections identified between criminal offences
• To aid investigations in member states

• To maintain a computerised system of collected information]

The Court of Justice of the European Communities was set up in 1952 under the Treaty of Paris (establishing the European Coal and Steel Community). Its’ function is to ensure that EU legislation is interpreted and applied in the same way in each member state. In other words, that application of EU law is identical for all parties and in all circumstances.

The Court is composed of one judge per member state, so that all the EU's national legal systems are represented.

With regard to matters dealing with criminal justice, the court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of framework decisions and decisions on the interpretation of conventions and implementing measures. However, Member States have to declare that they accept the jurisdiction of the Court to give preliminary rulings. The UK has not made such a declaration.

The Key Concepts

The key concept in European Criminal Justice is mutual recognition. Mutual recognition of final decisions between Member States is a process by which a judgment handed down by a judicial authority in one Member State is recognised and enforced by the judicial authorities of another. This is an essential tool in judicial co-operation in criminal matters and in order to work efficiently the judicial decisions must be accepted without scrutiny in the executing state. Mutual recognition has been described as the "cornerstone" of judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters.
The key concept in European Criminal Justice is . Mutual recognition of final decisions between Member States is a process by which a judgment handed down by a judicial authority in one Member State is recognised and enforced by the judicial authorities of another. This is an essential tool in judicial co-operation in criminal matters and in order to work efficiently the judicial decisions must be accepted without scrutiny in the executing state. Mutual recognition has been described as the "cornerstone" of judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters.

The Commission asserts that the principle of mutual recognition is founded on notions of equivalence and trust and that enhanced mutual recognition would facilitate co-operation between authorities and improve the protection of individual rights. Mutual Trust is a key concept in ensuring mutual recognition is a reality.

Transparency and democratic accountability are also essential to the future development of the European Union and these principles are at the core of all developments in the Union, policy, practice and procedure.

Subsidiarity and Propotionality are the principles that determine that action takes place at the most appropriate level in those areas where competence is shared by member states and that it is proportional to the result to be achieved.

The European Commission is the body that proposes legislation, however in criminal law Member States currently also have the right to propose legislation. Legislation can only be implemented if it is agreed unanimously by the Council Ministers after consultation with the European Parliament.

Framework Decisions are the key legislative tool in European Union criminal justice, which are adopted for the purpose of approximation of laws and regulations of the Member States. Framework Decisions are binding upon Member States as to the result to be achieved but leave the choice of form and method of implementation to the national authorities. They do not have direct effect, but require national legislation in order to implement the decisions.
For example, the European Arrest Warrant was transposed into UK law by the Extradition Act 2003.

Commission Decisions are adopted for any other purpose relevant to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters excluding approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. They are binding but do not entail direct effect. The Council, acting by qualified majority shall adopt measures necessary to implement these decisions at the level of the European Union.

Conventions are the historic inter-governmental co-operation instruments, for example the mutual legal assistance convention. These are adopted in accordance with Member States constitutional requirements and member states begin the procedures applicable within a time limit to be set by the Council.

Communications from the European Commission set out the mission statement and are a pre curser to legislative tools. Generally consultation is initiated by a Green Paper which sets out the background to a

proposal, and lists questions to be addressed during the consultation process by interested parties.

I will now detail some of the key projects in European criminal justice starting with perhaps the most important, the European Arrest Warrant. The European Arrest Warrant is regarded as the first, and most significant measure adopted to help implement the principal of mutual recognition in the area of judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The significance of the European Arrest Warrant legislation extends beyond the procedures it implements, and goes to the heart of mutual recognition as a concept to be achieved in European criminal justice. The aim is to create a genuine European judicial space. Within this general context, the European Arrest Warrant has replaced traditional forms of extradition which were perceived as lengthy and cumbersome and inappropriate to the reality of the European space without borders. The aim was for the warrant issued by a judicial decision in one Member State, to be automatically recognised and executed by a judicial authority in the executing state. Following a period of consultation, on 13 June 2002, the final version of the Framework Decision was published with a target date of 1 January 2004 for implementation in each Member States’ national legislation. There were four key areas where the legislators believed the European Arrest Warrant would improve on the former extradition procedures: to introduce faster procedures, to simplify procedures, to remove any political involvement in the process preserving it as a purely judicial process and to limit the grounds for refusal of

extradition, for example by removing the "own national" ground for refusal of extradition.

Overall the aim was to introduce more effective law enforcement with no safe havens for those accused o criminal activity in Europe. One of the most controversial aspects of the European Arrest Warrant was the removal of the requirement of dual criminality for a list of 32 offences if they would attract a maximum sentence of three years custody or more in the issuing state. For other offences the requirement for dual criminality still exists plus the offence must attract a minimum sentence of 12 months in he issuing state or, in cases where sentence has already been passed, the sentence must be of at least four months.

On 23 February 2005, the European Commission published a report assessing the implementation of the Framework Decision which suggests that implementation has not been as fast or as universal as anticipated. However, figures in the report say that in the past year 2,603 warrants were issued, 653 people were arrested and 104 persons were surrendered between January and September 2004. The report identifies problems experienced implementing the Framework Decision into international legislation and its application, in particular some Member States have introduced grounds for refusal which

were not part of the Framework Decision. However, in terms of speed of surrenders, the report suggests that the average time taken to execute a warrant has fallen from more than 9 months to 43 days.

For many observers of the European criminal justice and those who have an interest in human rights and protection of the rights of European citizens, there has been criticism that this legislation has been introduced before any European legislation has been implemented concerning minimum standards in procedural safeguards and rights in criminal proceedings.

Later in my presentation I will tell you about the draft Framework Decision on procedural safeguards which the legislators hope will address these problems but which is not due to be finalised until December 2005.
As well as the framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant, some of the important proposals in European Union criminal justice include framework decisions on a European Evidence Warrant, certain procedural rights and safeguards, data retention, mutual recognition and execution of orders freezing property or evidence, and of confiscation orders, and a proposal to establish common rules in relation to the non bis in idem principle.

There are key Green Papers concerning approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions and of mutual recognition of pre-trial non-custodial supervision orders.

There is a Council Decision on cross border access to criminal records. These are just some of the key proposals which gives you an idea of the volume and scope of the influence of European criminal justice. I will now give you a brief summary of each of these proposals:

The draft Framework Decision of the European Evidence Warrant is another key instrument which is likely to have a major impact on European Criminal Justice, similar to the European Arrest Warrant. According to the Hague Programme it is intended for the European Evidence Warrant to be adopted in December 2005 and implementation by 2007.

This proposal would apply the principle of mutual recognition to obtaining certain types of evidence for use in criminal proceedings. The European Evidence Warrant is an order that would be issued by a judicial authority in one Member State and which would be directly recognised and enforced by a judicial authority in another. It will replace the current mutual assistance regime and, like the Arrest Warrant, the legislators aim is to create quicker and

more efficient judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

The proposal focuses on obtaining objects, documents and data that are obtained under national procedural law measures such as production orders and search & seizure orders. It also covers information already contained in police or judicial records, such as records of criminal conviction.

However, the proposal does not address the taking of evidence (in whatever manner) from suspects, defendants, witnesses or victims. The proposal also excludes certain types of evidence. Principally, the taking of body samples, such as DNA and obtaining evidence in real-time, such as interception of communications and monitoring of bank accounts. Evidence requiring further enquiries, such as the commissioning of an expert's report is also excluded. The obtaining of those types of evidence from another Member State will therefore continue to be governed by existing mutual assistance rules for the time being, although a further framework decision is anticipated to come these areas.

This proposal adopts the same approach to mutual recognition as the European Arrest Warrant. This means that the European Evidence Warrant can be executed immediately by the foreign court as if it had been issued according to domestic procedure. Requests will be standardised into a single form. The framework decision limits the grounds on which execution of an warrant can be refused. Deadlines are laid down for the execution of the warrants. The proposal contains minimum safeguards for the issuing and executing States.

In the issuing State, a European Evidence Warrant could be issued only by a judge, investigating magistrate or prosecutor. The issuing authority would have to be satisfied that it could obtain the objects, documents or data in "similar circumstances" if they were on the territory of its own Member State.

This would prevent the European Evidence Warrant from being used to circumvent national safeguards on obtaining evidence. For example, it would ensure that prohibitions in the issuing State on obtaining evidence subject to legal privilege or confidentiality, for example medical or journalistic material would apply equally where its judicial authorities sought such evidence from the territory of another Member State. Similarly the objects, documents and data should be likely to be admissible in the proceedings for which it is sought.

In the executing State the proposal recognises that there is a need to ensure that the fundamental right not to incriminate oneself is protected, and that the need for additional safeguards with respect to search and seizure are respected. Effective legal remedies are also required in the issuing and executing States when coercive measures are used to obtain the evidence. The non bis in idem principle would also be a ground for refusal to

execute the European Evidence Warrant.

The draft framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union is regarded by many criminal defence and human rights practitioners as an essential piece of legislation in order to preserve European Citizens Rights in the face of the growing body of European criminal legislation.

Following a public consultation and Green paper the European Commission published its long-awaited proposal on procedural rights in April 2004 and discussions began in the Council in September 2004.

Some Member States have argued that there is no need for this framework decision as it just rehearses the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Commission argues that the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights cannot bear the burden and that there is a need for action at an EU level in this respect. The Commission argues that minimum procedural guarantees and standards relating to the rights of the defendant must be a key part of the mutual recognition programme, even if the proposal is reinforcing the rights that already exists. The aim is to make these rights more "visible".

The draft Framework Decision deals with the following issues.

• Access to legal advice, both before and during trial.
• Access to interpretation and translation for non-native defendants.

•Protection of persons who cannot understand or follow the proceedings.

• Communication and consular assistance to foreign detainees.
• A Letter of Rights.

It appears that this proposal is still the subject of debate and controversy and it is not clear if the framework decision will be adopted by December 2005, as suggested in the Hague programme timetable. In any event it appears that procedural rights will be introduced in a far more piecemeal fashion that had originally been anticipated by the legislators.

There is a new draft Framework Decision on data retention relating to data processed for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism. The political deadline for adoption is June 2005 with a swift implementation period.

This is not a European Commission proposal but a joint Member State initiative following up a declaration on combating terrorism adopted by the European Council on 25 March 2004, in which the Council was instructed to examine measures for establishing rules on the retention of communications traffic data by service providers.

The draft framework Decision deals with retention on retention of data processed and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or data on public communications networks for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism. The Commission is also planning to bring forward a further Framework Decision on data protection in police and criminal matters in December 2005.

The Framework Decision dealing with the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence has a transportation deadline set at 2 August 2005. The purpose of the Framework Decision is to establish the rules under which a Member State shall recognise and execute in its territory a freezing order issued by a judicial authority of another Member State in the framework of criminal proceedings. Based on the principle of mutual recognition these measures would compel a court in one Member State, to freeze and transfer assets at the request of a court in another Member State. Under the proposals, such an order would be directly transmitted and executed between courts. The form of the request is standardised and grounds for non-recognition of the order are limited.

Dual criminality is not a requirement for 32 listed offences attracting a maximum custodial sentence of at least three years in the issuing state. A party wishing to appeal the order will be able to do so in either the Member State where the order is issued or where it is enforced.

If the wrong information is transmitted, the Member State, which issues the order, would be held liable.

The framework decision on the execution in the European Union of confiscation orders is likely to have an implementation date of March 2007.

The purpose of this Framework Decision is to facilitate co-operation between Member States as regards the recognition and execution of orders to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

Under the mutual recognition principle, a Member State will have to recognise and execute in its territory confiscation orders issued by judicial authorities of another Member State.

In February 2003 the Greece introduced an initiative with a view to adopting a framework decision concerning the application of the non bis in idem principle, [Double jeopardy]. The aim of this Framework Decision is to provide the Member States with common legal rules relating to the non bis in idem principle in order to ensure uniformity in both theinterpretation of those rules and their practical implementation. Questions of which court has jurisdiction over a crime are becoming more frequent. If non bis in idem is not applied this

will be at the expense of legal certainty and may prejudice the defendant's rights.

Green Papers and Council Decisions

On 17 August 2004 the European Commission published their Green Paper on mutual recognition of non-custodial pre-trial supervision measures and there is likely to be a Framework Decision published in due course.

The main idea behind the creation of such an instrument is to substitute pre-trial detention with a non-custodial supervision measure. Whatever requirements are imposed as an alternative measure would then be carried out in a different Member State to that of the trial.

This would normally be where the suspected person has his or her residence.

This proposal identifies that non-nationals are currently less likely to be granted non-custodial supervision measures whilst awaiting trial, and with the increase in the use of the European Arrest Warrant and other measures this could result in a large number of European citizens being held in custody in foreign countries pending their trials.

Different models are under discussion.

The Commission argues that in order to ensure the compliance with a non-custodial supervision measure, the new instrument must contain, as a last resort, a coercive mechanism to return an uncooperative suspected person to the trial State, if necessary by force. They believe that it is rather the "mere existence of such a possibility" than its actual use that ensures the smooth functioning of the new instrument.

The Green Paper on the approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the European Union which was presented on 30 April 2004 followed by a meeting of Member State Government representatives and independent experts held on 10 / 11 June.

There are wide divergences throughout the European Union relating to penalty levels, time actually served and general sentencing practices. Apart from imprisonment, a wide range of penalties are available in the Member States’ criminal systems. Even if the same penalty is defined for the same offence, there are major divergences in the general rules of criminal law of the Member States, so that the penalty imposed and the penalty served may not be the same. The Green Paper will serve as the Commission's basis for action in this area in the future.

The Law Society, although expressing support for the mutual recognition agenda, took the view that the Commission's ambitions had gone too far as regards the approximation of criminal sanctions. It was felt that EU action should be focused on effective enforcement and mutual recognition rather than general harmonisation across the board. The UK Government also took a similar line.

A draft Council Decision on cross border access to criminal records was presented on 13 October 2004 designed to speed up the sharing of information between Member States relating to criminal convictions.

The aim of this Decision is to improve the existing machinery as far as information sharing on previous convictions is concerned - so as to make cross-border co-operation more effective. It is designed to enhance information sharing amongst Member States and is the first step in a longer-term plan designed to improve information sharing on criminal records and establish mechanisms for the mutual recognition of previous convictions. Some major

developments are ahead in this area.

There is already a legal framework in place for one country to request and receive information pertaining to an individual's criminal record in another country based on the 1959 Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance supplemented by the Additional Protocol to the 1978 European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance. The Commission however considers the machinery is limited in scope and information circulates poorly in practice. The new proposals would therefore update the current regime in anticipation for the Commission's

longer-term ambition for judicial authorities to take account of previous convictions of an individual in another Member State at the time of sentencing.

As you have already heard, the Constitutional Treaty was signed in Rome on 29 October 2004. It will have to be ratified by each Member State before it can enter into force. Many Governments will hold a referendum to decide whether it should be ratified. The aim is for the Treaty to enter into force by November 2006. It is expected that the UK will hold a referendum some time in 2006.

The new Constitutional Treaty consolidates and replaces all other European Treaties that have accumulated over the years. It mainly simplifies and clarifies what already exists. However, there are also some important innovations and these principally relate to Justice and Home Affairs policy and more specifically police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

• Legislative Method

Under the Constitutional Treaty, broadly speaking, most EU policy areas are now subject to the same "legislative method" - this includes judicial co-operation in criminal matters and approximation and harmonisation measures with limited exceptions set out below. Under this procedure:

• European Commission will have sole right of initiative to propose legislation (i.e. Member States will not be able to initiate proposals).
• European Parliament will have a joint decision-making power "co-decision" (as opposed to a purely consultative role).
• In the Council of Ministers (Member States), decisions will be taken by qualified majority voting ("QMV") (and not unanimous).
• The European Court of Justice will be full jurisdiction. As I discussed earlier, prior to this the European Court of Justice had jurisdiction under article 35 of the Treaty on European Union but Member States had to confer jurisdiction. National Courts will now be able to make preliminary references directly to the European Court of Justice.

• General Policy in Criminal Justice

The constitution contains specific articles relevant to criminal law. Under the general provisions it is declared that, the Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for co-ordination and co-operation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws.

• Judicial Cooperation in criminal matters

With regard to judicial co-operation in criminal matters, there are two key articles, one dealing with co-operation and mutual recognition and the other dealing with approximation and harmonisation.

• Mutual recognition

The principle of mutual recognition is clearly set out and there are provisions for measures to be brought forward to establish rules and procedures to ensure the recognition throughout the Union of all forms of judgments and judicial decisions. Moreover there is a clear statement that "co-operation" shall include the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States in certain areas of criminal activity.

The constitution provides minimum rules to be set down to the extent necessary to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decision having cross-border effect in the following areas:

(a) mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States;

(b) the rights of individuals in criminal procedure;

(c) the rights of victims of crime;

Member States can however go above and beyond these minimum rules to introduce a higher level of protection for individuals.

Moreover minimum rules can be set down for "any other specific aspects of criminal procedure" which the Council has identified in advance but Member States must decide by unanimity. Also it is reinforced that such rules shall take into account the differences between the legal traditions and systems of the Member States.

"Traditional" judicial co-operation is also referred to with the aim to encourage the training of the judiciary and judicial staff and facilitate co-operation between judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings in criminal matters and the enforcement of decisions.

• Definition of criminal offences and sanctions [Article III – 172 p 198]

With regard to definition of criminal offences and sanctions, minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension are dealt with in the constitution.

The article states that if the approximation of criminal legislation proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy which has been subject to harmonisation measures, then legislative measures may be brought forward to establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions.

The areas that this action would cover are:

This is essentially a list of "euro-crimes" where the EU has the competence to take action. Legislative action in this area would be by co-decision and qualified majority voting. The European Parliament would have equal decision-making power and agreement could be reached with only a certain number of Member States. This is again a major development.

The Council may adopt a European decision identifying other areas of crime that could fall within the cross border sphere on the basis of "developments in crime". In setting out these "other areas" agreement amongst Member States must be unanimous and the European Parliament must consent to it.

Also included is an emergency brake procedure to compensate for the transfer of criminal matters from unanimity to qualified majority voting. A Member State can apply the "emergency brake" procedure where it is felt that measures proposed would affect the fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system. [Article III – 172(3)]. The draft would be referred back to the Council for further consideration.

• Eurojust [Article III – 174 (ex Artilce 31(2) TEU) p 200]

Under the Constitution, Eurojust's powers are extended to include:

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

prosecutions, conducted by competent national authorities, particularly those

relating to offences against the financial interests of the Union;

(b) the co-ordination of investigations and prosecutions so initiated;

(c) the strengthening of judicial co-operation, including by resolution of conflicts

of jurisdiction and by close co-operation with the European Judicial Network.

European laws shall also determine arrangements for involving the European

Parliament and Member States' national Parliaments in the evaluation of

Eurojust's activities.

• European Public Prosecutors Office [slide] [Article III – 175(new) p 201]

As I mentioned before, the European Public Prosecutions Office ("EPP") is specifically referred to in the Constitution as an office that may be established from Eurojust in order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union. However this is only where Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

This EPP shall be responsible "for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests". It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.

Although at present it refers to offences against the Union's financial interests the European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a European decision amending this in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension.

Any decision relating to the EPP - be it the actual establishment of an office or the role and remit - must be taken by unanimity. So whilst there is now a Treaty provision for the establishment of the EPP every Member State has to agree to the future proposal.

• Police co-operation and Europol [Article III-176 (ex Article 30(1) TEU)

This Constitution also states that the Union shall establish police co-operation involving all the Member States' competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences.

To this end, European laws or framework laws may establish measures concerning:

(a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant

information;

(b) support for the training of staff, and co-operation on the exchange of staff, on equipment and on research into crime-detection;

(c) common investigative techniques in relation to the detection of serious forms of organised crime.

The Constitution reasserts Europol's mission is to support and strengthen action by the

Member States' police authorities and other law enforcement services and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime. This would be where such action is deemed to affect two or more Member States, terrorism and forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by a Union policy.

European laws shall also lay down the procedures for scrutiny of Europol's activities by the European Parliament, together with Member States' national parliaments. This is an innovation - previously Europol was outside the realm of EU structures.

• Charter of Fundamental Rights and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights has been incorporated into the Constitution, however Member States are only bound by the Charter rights when implementing European law.

Finally, the Constitution states, the Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Constitution.

Therefore, it is clear that there is an increasing body of EU criminal justice legislation which set out a programme of implementation for each Member States into their national legislation. Coupled with this programme is an initiative to increase police co-operation between the Member States in order to combat Euro crimes and serious organised crime in cross border cases. The European Constitution, if recognised, will strengthen further the basis for the creation of further co-operation with mutual recognition of judicial decisions and

co-operation between enforcement agencies. Even if the Constitution is not ratified, there is an ambitious programme to implement measures relevant to criminal justice in the near future.

I hope that has given you a quick but thorough introduction to European criminal justice and the current and future development of EU legal principles in criminal matters.