By the “Fundamental Rights European Experts Group” (FREE Group) (see below)
“Let’s be driven by our values and not by our fears”
1. Three years after Lisbon the objective of an EAFSJ is still far away…
Three years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the European Charter of fundamental rights one can wonder if the European Union and its Member States are really committed to the objective of building the European Freedom Security and Justice Area. It is worth recalling that this objective dates back to 1997 when the Amsterdam Treaty was signed, but it has since then been substantially upgraded by the Lisbon Treaty.
After years of hard negotiations between the MS the EAFSJ has been tightly linked to a newly binding Charter of fundamental rights and some of the previous political, legal and democratic flaws have been solved. For three years the qualified majority voting has been the normal Council decision-making rule, the EP is a full co-legislator and the Commission and the European Court of Justice can fully play their role.
2. A deceiving outcome on quantitative and qualitative terms..
However notwithstanding these undeniable constitutional advances, the EU recent activity is quite deceptive both in quantitative as in qualitative terms. The EU and its MS seem still in a transitional and survival phase than in the long awaited building phase of true EAFSJ.
On quantitative aspects suffice it to note that since the beginning of the legislative term less than fifty legislative proposals have been submitted and only twenty have until now been adopted (1). If this trend continues one can wonder if the European Parliament and the Council will be able to adopt in the last 18 months of this legislature all the texts currently on the table not to speak of the proposals that the Commission has announced notably from the second half of 2013.
But much more concerning are the qualitative aspects of the institutional activity in a domain which is deemed to be now the core of the European public space.
To start with some positive aspects it is more than likely that the new Common European Asylum System foreseen by the art. 78 TFEU (and by the art.18 of the Charter) will be adopted before the end of this year (2). Progress has also been achieved with the adoption of the first measures dealing with the suspect’s rights in criminal proceedings (3) as well as in the judicial cooperation in civil matters (4) and on the establishment of new Agencies (5).
These decisions have often been taken after lengthy and painful negotiations and have been accompanied by the conclusion of international agreements as happened with the EU-US TFTP and PNR agreements. However a positive assessment on the latter is not obvious and the risks has been denounced that the final outcome could still not comply with the European Charter as well as of the European Convention of Human rights standards (6). The EP rejection of the ACTA agreement (7) has confirmed that the EU institutions often do not share the same vision of the balance to be struck between freedom and security.
3. Missing some of the opportunities arising from the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter..
It is therefore on constitutional grounds that the last three years activity raise more concerns and make the citizens think that the Lisbon reform objectives in the EAFSJ are still far from being achieved and in some cases have not even been started.
Suffice it to remember:
– the case of data protection which is now firmly rooted on a strong legal basis (art. 16 TFEU linked art. 8 of the Charter) and where the two Commission proposals are already blocked in Council,
– the case of the new access to documents standards which are a pivotal element of the EU legitimacy and accountability (art. 15 TFEU and art. 42 of the Charter) and which are still blocked by a majority of Member States supported de facto by the Commission,
– the new anti-discrimination rules (8) which have been blocked since 2008 by a majority of Member States.
In other cases such as the implementation of the principle of good administration (art.298 TFEU and Art.41 Charter) or dealing with freezing of terrorist assets (art.75 TFEU) the Commission did not submitted the legislative proposals or even started the preparatory work.
4. The EAFSJ credibility at stake also at national level ..
Paradoxically the new Treaty has also made evident in several cases the lack of political will of the MS to fulfil the new Treaty’s and Charter improved standards.
This is also confirmed by the obstacles raised by two EU Member States on the EU accession to the European Convention of Human rights (foreseen by the Art. 6 of the TEU). The main texts having already been negotiated it is really unfortunate that because of this opposition the ECHR cannot play a full role of last resort Judge for fundamental rights or on EU acts.
In a more general perspective this delay weaken the complementarity between the ECHR and the EU legal orders when fundamental rights are at stake. It also deprives the EU of the possibility to take full account of the ECtHR jurisprudence in the framework of the Art 7 TEU procedure dealing with the risk of violation of the EU founding values.
Unfortunately this is not a rhetorical hypothesis as, even after Lisbon, some EU MS, by invoking the need to protect their national identity have challenged their citizens right to fully enjoy the content of the EU law notably linked with the freedom of movement or the anti discrimination rules (9).
Not surprisingly the current MS different standards on the protection of fundamental rights have triggered the refusal of other MS to implement the EU mutual recognition principle. Whether due to decisions of the judiciary (10) or of political Institutions (11) this situation has de facto weakened the mutual trust and paved the way to a sort of MS “self defence” policy which affects the very spirit of the EAFSJ and of the European Union legal order. In such as complex situation it is evident that any progress in the EAFSJ is becoming more and more difficult and the credibility of the project could be more and more at stake.
5. A new start for the EAFSJ objective by evaluating the Stockholm Programme…
To avoid the worsening of the current situation a thorough evaluation of the policies and objectives outlined in the Stockholm Programme should be engaged as soon as possible and an open debate should be organised by the European Parliament with the national parliaments at the very latest in the spring of 2013.
This parliamentary debate could be the first occasion for the Council, the MS and the Commission to implement the art.70 (and 71) of the TFEU by having an”.. objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation of the Union policies referred to in this Title by Member States’ authorities, in particular in order to facilitate full application of the principle of mutual recognition”.
As far as the content of the evaluation is concerned it would be extremely helpful to assess :
a) how the EAFSJ policies are really implementing the values outlined by art. 2 of the TEU “of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.” The Commission has already adopted yearly reports on the implementation of the European Charter. The exercise should be strengthened and focus on the cases where tensions have arisen between some Member States and the EU institutions (citizenship rights, freedom of movement, Roma discrimination). In the same perspective the report should also be extended to the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts jurisprudence to verify if the necessary follow up has been given or if further actions at EU level is still needed. Particularly interesting is the recent Vice President Reding proposal to establish a permanent evaluation mechanism of the quality of Justice in all the EU member states
b) how the specific EAFSJ strategies have been implemented notably for borders migration and asylum as well as for the internal security strategy. Attention should paid also to the external aspects of these strategies which apparently are growing without any structured parliamentary oversight
c) if the current multilevel structure of the preparatory bodies in the Council (which dates back to the pre-Amsterdam era) is still fit for purpose bearing in mind the growing role played in the “shadows” by COSI
d) if the creation of two different portfolios in the Commission has not made more difficult the political synthesis at EU level on the EAFSJ policies notably because of the separation of police cooperation from judicial cooperation. It is then quite surprising that after having merged the first and the third pillar and having created a single legal basis for the protection of personal data two different legislative proposals have been submitted so prolonging the risk of inconsistencies and legal void
e) why the pre-existing EAFSJ permanent monitoring tools (score-board) have been abandoned at the time when much more transparency was needed not only at the level of the adoption of the EU legislation but notably at the level of the implementation of that legislation be it directly, indirectly or via EU agencies
f) if the increasing volume of delegated and implementing acts and the increasing transfer of functions to the European Agencies (Europol for the internal security strategy, Frontex for the integrated border management, Eurojust for the judicial cooperation in penal matters) is not affecting the EU institutional balance. This lack of transparency could be worrying notably for the European and national Parliaments not to speak of the EU citizens
g) if the police intelligence-led approach and the multiple databases and applications developed or planified have a real added value and are necessary and proportionate at EU level. Would not a thorough evaluation of SISII and VIS and of the smooth functioning of the recent Agency for the IT management, be a prerequisite of future developments? In the meantime neutral and independent impact assessment should not be done before extending the scope of other database (Eurodac) ?
h) how the EAFSJ transparency could be improved by giving the possibility to the citizens themselves to verify how the EU measures are negotiated and if the EU law is being correctly implemented in the MS
i) how the European and national Parliaments, in the interest of their citizens, could be better and timely informed of the risks and potential weaknesses of the EAFSJ.
6. .. and by paving the way of the new 2015-2020 multiannual programme
The outcome of the interparliamentary conference could then be the first phase of the preparation of the next EAFSJ multiannual programme 2015-2020.
The new programme will be adopted hopefully with the support of a newly elected European Parliament and will be the first global programme which could cover all the EAFSJ policies without further transitional periods and, hopefully, with a more clear situation on the Member States’S side. At that time the UK will have decided if to be fully part of the EAFSJ policies, IRL will have had done the same before 1st December 2012 and DK could have held the repeatedly announced referendum on the EAFSJ. (12) (13)
After decades of reciprocal tests which date back to the first TREVI group of 1975, the EU institutions and the MS should be able in the next legislature to enter a new phase of the EAFSJ paving the way to the first European public space.
As it was announced fifty years ago by the ECJ with seminal rulings like Van Gend En Loos (14 ) and Meroni ( 15) such a European public space will not be less complex and important than establishing the new legal framework for the European economic and monetary Union.
The Charter being for the EAFSJ what the EURO is for the economic Union also in the EAFSJ too many diverging strategies at MS level should be avoided and the solidarity principle outlined in art. 80 and 222 of the TFEU should become the key driving factor and streamline all the EAFSJ related policies. Like for the European Semester established for the coordination of budgetary policies a permanent mutual evaluation mechanism between the MS and the EU institutions should be established for the EAFSJ policies with the full participation of the European and national parliaments. Needless to say that like in the economic union the EAFSJ “European Model” could only be built as a complement and not as a substitute of the MS action as both domains are of shared competence (art. 2 p 2 TFEU).
7. Making the new multiannual programme a more democratic exercise
It should be a matter of common sense that building the EU as a public space requires the strongest interaction between the citizens with the two institutions on which the EU representative democracy is founded : the a European Parliament and the European Council (art.10 TEU).
If this is true, also the implementation of Art. 68 of the TFEU according to which the European Council defines “the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice” should comply with the general democratic principle as expressed by the art. 11.2 () and 12 of the TEU not to speak of the principle of loyal cooperation with the European Parliament.
These aspects have been partially taken in account during the negotiations of the Stockholm Programme (); however since then the European Council has adopted other strategic documents such as the Internal security strategy and the migration strategy and other “strategies” without any formal association of the European Parliament or of the civil society.
To partially cover this clear democratic deficit the European Council it would appropriate to announce before 2014 a procedure to be followed for the preparation of the post-Stockholm Programme by granting full transparence and allowing the direct participation notably of the European and national Parliaments. It is worth recalling that already in 1963, 1974 the Council and in 1984 the European Council were able to define procedures strengthening the democratic accountability by formally associating the European Parliament even when the Treaty was silent.
8 Re-stating a democratic “check and balance” in the EAFSJ
The main challenge of the new multiannual programme will be to engage the so-called “lisbonisation” of the EAFSJ related policies by defining
– which role should still be played at European and national level,
– what should be regulated at EU legislative level,
– what could be delegated or implemented directly, indirectly or through the EU Agencies.
The recent recurrent heated debates on comitology and delegated powers in the EAFSJ related legislation and the recent ECJ ruling in the C-355/10 in the Frontex case abundantly shows that in the EAFSJ we are still very far from having defined the institutional checks and balance required by the “Meroni” and “Romano” jurisprudence (18 ) not to speak of the principle according to which the EU “places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.”(19).
If such a messy legal situation was inevitable in a thirty years long painful transition from disconnected MS initiatives towards the establishment of the EAFSJ it would be less acceptable in a post 2014 situation. To postpone yet again such a clarification will be prejudicial both for the institutions themselves and for the EU citizens who need know and understand the different actors’ powers and duties particularly in these sensitive domains.
9. Engaging the post-2014 Lisbonisation of the EAFSJ policies
Without a clear re-assessment of the current EAFSJ acquis the situation risks becoming even worse when on 1 December 2014 some 100-130 acts dealing with the police and judicial cooperation adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will be submitted to the “ordinary” regime and to the full oversight of the Commission and of the Court of Justice. It is well known that the automatic “Lisbonisation” foreseen by the Protocol 36 of the Lisbon Treaty will affect some of the more important and still controversial measures such the European Arrest Warrant, the Framework Decision on terrorism, some aspects of the Schengen acquis, international agreements, and the Prum implementing decisions.
It would be a matter of common sense that acts framed in a different historical, institutional and legal framework and more focused on the intergovernmental cooperation than on the establishment of an EU self-standing model should now be re-evaluated in the post-2014 perspective. The compliance with the proportionality and necessity criteria should be re-assessed as well as if these measures comply with the new constitutional role of the EP and of the Commission. Under this perspective the current inter-institutional conflict on the Schengen evaluation system opposing the Council and the European Parliament risks being only the first of a number of prolonged inter-institutional quarrels.
The same reassessment should be done for the growing number of EU agencies currently working in the FSJA which are widening up their activities still without any kind of meaningful coordination (alongside the almost secret work of the COSI committee instituted by art. 71 of the TFEU) or parliamentary control at European and national level (as required for Europol and Eurojust by art 85 and 88 of the TFEU).
The lack of coordinated initiatives defining the future role of these bodies is highly regrettable as it is the Commission and Council tactic which has delayed the “Lisbonisation” of Europol and Eurojust which will have survived five more years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty by avoiding both the democratic control of the European and national parliament as well the control of the ECJ.
All that having been said the undersigned FREE-Group members and the associated associations (Fondazione Basso, Statewatch, ECLAN, Odysseus) strongly recommend that the EU institutions engage as soon as possible the evaluation of the current situation of the EAFSJ as well as the preparation of the post-2014 phase. As Civil society expression We will endeavour to follow closely the institutions activity in the EAFSJ notably when evaluating the Stockholm Programme and preparing the next multiannual programme.
Brussels, November 7, 2012
MEMBERS OF THE FREE GROUP (by Country):
Valerio ONIDA, full professor (retired) of Constitutional Law, University of Milan, former justice and president of the Italian Constitutional Court, president of the Italian School for the Judiciary.
Stefano RODOTA Professor emeritus of Law,, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Former Chairman of art.29 Working Party on Data protection, and of the Scientific Committee of the Fundamental Rights Agency, European Union, Chair, Internet Governance Forum Italy
Giuseppe CATALDI Vice-President, Professor of International Law and holder of a EU’s “Jean Monnet” Chair “ad personam” on the « Protection of Human Rights in Europe » at the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. He is the Director of the National Researches Council’s Institute of International Juridical Studies (Neapolitan Branch), Vice-President of the Italian Society for International law.
Elena PACIOTTI President of the Fondazione Lelio e Lisli Basso-Issoco in Rome. Former Member of the Executive Board of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Vienna. Former Member of the EP LIBE Committee and of Conventions on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
Emilio DE CAPITANI Visiting Professor at “L’Orientale” University in Naples and teaching Fellow at Scuola Superiore S.Anna in Pisa. Former Secretary of the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE). In his professional life in charge of interinstitutional relations at the European Parliament and at the Lombardy Region.
Spiros SIMITIS: Professor of Labour and Civil law, Computer Science and Law at the Goethe- University, Frankfurt; Director of the Research centre for Data Protection; Visiting Professor i.e. at Yale Law School (since 1980) and at the University of Paris (1990-2001); Member of the Research Council of the European University Institute, Florence (1990-1996); Data Protection Commissioner of the German Federal State of Hesse (1975-1991); Chairman of: the Data Protection Experts Committe of the Council of Europe (1982-86); the High level experts Group on Social Rights of the European Commission (1998-1989) the German National Ethics Council (2001-2005).
Jörg MONAR Professor at the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin) since 1991. Ph.D. In Modern History (1989) and in Political and Social Sciences (1991). Professor holding the EU Marie Curie Chair of Excellence on EU internal security governance at the Robert Schuman University in Strasbourg and Director of the SECURINT project (on leave from the Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex, Brighton). Formerly Professor of Politics at the University of Leicester and Director of the Institut für Europäische Politik .Author of books and articles on the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, the New Transatlantic Agenda and EU Justice and Home Affairs. Editor of the European Foreign Affairs Review.
Philippe DE BRUYCKER Jean Monnet Chair for European Law on Immigration & Asylum and Professor at the Institute for European Studies and the Law Faculty of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) as well as Sciences-Po in Paris. He is Deputy Director of the Migration Policy Centre of the EUI in Florence. Founder of the “Academic Network for Legal Studies on Immigration and Asylum in Europe” (“Odysseus”). Adviser for European Commission the I.O.M. in Tirana for the National Strategy on Migration of the Albanian Government. Expert and trainer for different institutions (European Parliament, UNHCR, IOM, ICMPD,…). Author of the European Asylum Curriculum (EAC) used by the European Asylum Support Office to train asylum case officers. After having extensively published on issues of constitutional and administrative law as Head of the Centre for Public Law in ULB till 1999, his several books and articles now focus on Immigration and Asylum Law with a special emphasis on its EU dimension.
Anne WEYEMBERGH Professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles on European criminal law, international criminal law, Belgian penal law (special part) and the area of freedom, security and justice. Founder and coordinator the European Criminal Law Academic Network (ECLAN). Coordinator of the ULB team on European criminal law and co-coordinator of the research Team called RECL (“University of Brussels – European Criminal Law”), which is common to ULB and VUB (Vrij Universiteit Brussel). Author of numerous articles and co-edited several collective books in the field of EU criminal law. Author of a monography “L’harmonisation des législations : condition de l’espace pénal européen et révélateur de ses tensions ”.
Yves POULLET full professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Namur (FUNDP) and Liège (Ulg). Former Director of CRIDS. Author of leading researches in the field of new technologies with a special emphasis on privacy issues, of individual and public freedom in the Information Society and of Internet Governance. Former Member of the Belgian Data Protection Commission. Member of the Legal Advisory Board of the DG INFOSOC. Founder of the European Telecommunications Forum ECLIP and FIRILITE. Co-founder of the ABDI (Association Belge de Droit de l’Informatique).
Henri LABAYLE Professor of Law at the Universities of Grenoble, Pau and Adour countries. Director of European Research Laboratory (CDRE). Dean and Jean Monnet Chair of European Union. Law Advisor and consultant of the EU institutions on Freedom security and Justice related issues. Visiting Professor at the European Institute of the Geneva University. DEA International and European Law. European Law Master Course Director. Member of several public and research bodies and commissions working in the public and European law domain.
Henri Pierre LEGROS Eulogos Athena President. Former European Commission Head of Unit in charge of interinstitutional relations. Coordinator of several internal and external information systems serving the European Area without Borders such as the EURES system). Author and co-author of Instititutional reports on better law making. Advisor for the EU Communication policy of the former EC Vice President Vitorino.
Steve PEERS Professor of Law at the Law School at the University of Essex. Expert advisor for the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, consultant to the European Commission and/or the European Parliament and a specialist adviser to the House of Lords EU Select Committee. Author or co-editor of several books on relevant aspects of EU law, of EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (3rd ed, OUP Jan 2011) and co-editor of EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006, 2nd edition, vols 1 and 2, 2012); the EU Charter of Rights (Hart, 2004); and Commentary on the EU Charter of Rights (forthcoming, Hart). Contributor to the work of Statewatch, Amnesty International, and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. Consultant for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Irish Attorney-General and the Council of Europe.
Tony BUNYAN Visiting Research Fellow at London Metropolitan University and the University of Bristol. Member National Union of Journalists (UK) and the International Federation of Journalists. Director of Statewatch since 1990 Investigative journalist and writer specialising in justice and home affairs, civil liberties, the state and freedom of information in the EU. Author of “The Political Police in Britain” (1977), “Secrecy and openness in the EU” (1999) and “The Shape of Things to Come” (2009) and edited “The War on Freedom and Democracy” (2005). In 2001 (for access to EU documents) and in 2004 (for work on the war on terrorism and civil liberties). “European Voice” newspaper selected him as one of the “EV50” – one of the fifty most influential people in the European Union.
Deirdre CURTIN Professor of European Law at the University of Amsterdam (since 2008) and (founding) Director of the Amsterdam Center for European Law and Governance at the University of Amsterdam (since 2009); Professor of European and International Governance at the Utrecht School of Governance at the University of Utrecht (part-time), since 2002. Deirdre Curtin is Professor of European Law at the University of Amsterdam, (Founding). First female lawyer member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Winner of the Spinoza prize awarded by the Dutch Scientific Organisation for her pioneering research in the field of European Law and Governance. Research leader of several innovative research projects embracing both law and political science, including Open Government in the European Union and Compound Constitution(s) in Europe.
United States of America
Marc ROTENBERG, President and Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC. Professor of information privacy law at Georgetown University Law Center and frequently testifies before Congress on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. He has served on several national and international advisory panels, including the expert panels on Cryptography Policy and Computer Security for the OECD, the Legal Experts on Cyberspace Law for UNESCO, and the Countering Spam program of the ITU. He chairs the ABA Committee on Privacy and Information Protection. He is a founding board member and former Chair of the Public Interest Registry, which manages the .ORG domain. He is editor of “The Privacy Law Sourcebook,” and co-editor of “Information Privacy Law” (Aspen Publishing 2006) and “Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws” (EPIC 2010). He is a graduate of Harvard College and Stanford Law School. He served as Counsel to Senator Patrick J. Leahy on the Senate Judiciary Committee after graduation from law school. He is the recipient of several awards, including the World Technology Award in Law, the American Lawyer Award for Top Lawyers Under 45, the Norbert Weiner Award for Social and Professional Responsibility, and the Vicennial medal from Georgetown University.
 The main legislative texts until now adopted are the following: 2010/0064(COD) Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (repeal of Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA), 2010/0147(COD) “Implementation of Article 10 of the United Nations Firearms Protocol and establishing export authorisation, import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and components and ammunition”, 2007/0229(COD) Single application procedure for residence and work, 2009/0028(COD) Movement of persons with a long-stay visa, 2010/0192(COD) Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, , 2010/0065(COD)Trafficking in human beings.
 2009/0164(COD) Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted (recast), 2009/0027(COD) Establishment of a European Asylum Support Office, 2007/0112(COD) Extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection
 2010/0801(COD) Rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, 2010/0215(COD)Right to information in criminal proceedings , 2011/0129(COD) “Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime”, 2010/0802(COD)European Protection Order
 2010/0384(NLE) Enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, 2009/0100(NLE) International recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance, 2009/0157(COD) “Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession”, 2010/0067(CNS) Law applicable to divorce and legal separation.
 2010/0039(COD) Amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX), 2009/0089(COD)”Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice”.
 These doubts have been recently raised by independent authorities such as the EDPS on the EU-US agreements on PNR and TFTP data concluded after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
 Text adoted: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0287+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
 The four years long debates on the new antidiscrimination rules abundantly show the lack of will of the Council in implementing a Charter founded principle.
 See the European Commission report on the implementation in 2011 of the European Charter (Doc COM (2012) 0169) as well as the EP relevant plenary debates dealing with behaviour of new member states such as Hungary and Romania governments as well as with of EU founding states such as Italy and France on the freedom of movement of EU citizens.
 Cfr in the asylum domain the rulings of several national and European judges dealing with the Dublin Convention implementation by Greece.
 See the FR and NL refusal to accept RO and BG as full members of the Schegen cooperation even after the EP and the European Council have recognised the fullfillment of the relevant techinical evaluation criteria
 The 2009 Stockholm Programme was negotiated in a period when it was not clear when the Lisbon Treaty would be ratified so that it was not able to build the consensus needed for a clear and exhaustive guidance on the strategic, legislative and operational objectives to be achieved in the following years.
 According to Declaration 56 “Ireland recalls that in accordance with Article 8 of the Protocol it may notify the Council in writing that it no longer wishes to be covered by the terms of the Protocol. Ireland intends to review the operation of these arrangements within three years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.”
According to theJudgment of the Court of 5 February 1963. – NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration. – Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tariefcommissie – Pays-Bas. – Case 26-62. “…The objective of the EEC Treaty, which is to establish a Common market, the functioning of which is of direct concern to interested parties in the community, implies that this Treaty is more than an agreement which merely creates mutual obligations between contracting States. This view is cofirmed by the preamble to the Treaty which refers not only to Governments but to peoples. It is also confirmed by the establishment of institutions endowed with sovereign rights, the exercice of which affects Member States and also their citizens.”
Joined cases 21/61 to 26/61: Judgment of the Court of 6 April 1962. Meroni & Co. and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community.
 According art. 11.p2 TEU “The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society”
 At that time the European Parliament was not associated to the international negotiations and to cover this gap the Luns-Westerterp procedure was introduced in 1964 (by Luns, Dutch Foreign Minister) to give the EP the chance to debate association agreements before negotiations started and was extended in 1973 by Westerterp to trade agreements.
 Case C-98/80 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 1981. Giuseppe Romano v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité.
 European Fundamental Rights Charter Preamble
ANNEX Protocol 36 (Article 10) Third pillar acts still into force
Protocol 36 (Article 10) Third pillar acts still into force
(NOTA BENE some acts are under way to be repealed )
1. 1995 Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the use of information technology for customs purposes (OJ C 316, 27.11.1995)
2. 1996 Council Act of 29 November 1996 drawing up, on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, the Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the use of information technology for customs purposes (OJ C 151, 20.5.1997)
3. 1997 Council Act of 18 December 1997 drawing up, on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, the Convention on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations – Declarations(OJ C 24, 23.1.1998)
4. 2000 Council Decision 2000/642/JHA of 17 October 2000 concerning arrangements between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information OJL 271,24.10.2000
5. 2000 Council Decision 2000/641/JHA of 17 October 2000 establishing a secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies set up by the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), the Convention on the Use of Information technology for Customs Purposes and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at the common borders (Schengen Convention) OJL 271, 24.10.2000
6. 2001 Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings OJL 82, 22.03.2001 (repealed by the EU Directive on the same subject)
7. 2001 Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA of 28 May 2001 combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment OJL 149, 02.06.2001
8. 2001 Council Decision 2001/419/JHA of 28 May 2001 on the transmission of samples of controlled substances OJL 150, 06.06.2001
9. 2001 Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (repealing Articles I, 3, 5(1) and 8(2) of Joint Action 98/699/JHA) OJL 182,05.07.2001
10. 2001 Council Act of 16 October 2001 establishing the Protocol to the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member states of the European Union OJC 326, 21.11.2001
11. 2001 Council Decision 2001/887/JHA of 6 December 2001 on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting OJL 329, 14.12.2001
12. 2001 Council Framework Decision 2001/888/JHA of 6 December 2001 amending Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro OJL 329,14.12.2001
13. 2002 Council Decision 2002/188/JHA of 28 February 2002 concerning control measures and criminal sanctions in respect of the new synthetic drug PMMA OJL 63, 06.03.2002
14. 2002 Council Decision 2002/348/JHA of 25 April 2002 concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension OJL 121, 08.05.2002
15. 2002 Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on ioint investigation teams OJ L 162,20.06.2002
16. 2002 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States OJL 190,18.07.2002
17. 2002 Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism OJL 164,22.06.2002
18. 2002 Council Decision 2002/996/JHA of 28 November 2002 establishing a mechanism for evaluating the legal systems and their implementation at national level in the fight against terrorism OJL 349, 24.12.2002
19. 2002 Council Decision 2002/956/JIIA of 22 November 2002 setting up a European Network for the Protection of Public Figures OJL 333,10.12.2002
20. 2002 Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA of 28 November 2002 on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence OJL 328, 05.15.2002
21. 2003 Council Decision 2003/170/JHA of 27 February 2003 on the common use of liaison officers posted abroad by the law enforcement agencies of the Member States OJL 67, 12.03.2003
22. 2003 Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector OJL 192,31.07.2003
23. 2003 Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence OJ L 196, 02.08.2003
24. 2003 Council Decision 2003/642/JHA of 22 July 2003 concerning the application to Gibraltar of the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities OJL 226,10.09.2003
25. 2004 Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug trafficking “OJ L 335, 11.11.2004”
26. 2004 Council Decision 2004/919/EC of 22 December 2004 on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications “OJ L 389, 30.12.2004” (probably repealed before 1st December 2014)
27. 2005 Council Common Position 2005/69/JHA of 24 January 2005 on exchanging certain data with Interpol “OJ L 27, 29.01.2005”
28. 2005 “Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property” “OJ L 68, 15.03.2005”(probably repealed before 1st December 2014)
29. 2005 Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties “OJ L 76, 22.03.2005”
30. 2005 Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems “OJ L 69, 16.03.2005” (probably repealed before 1st December 2014)
31. 2005 “Council Decision 2005/3 87/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances” “OJ L 127, 20.05.2005”
32. 2005 “Council Decision 2005/511/JHA of 12 July 2005 on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro-counterfeiting” OJ L 185 16.07.2005
33. 2005 Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences “OJ L 253, 29.09.2005”
34. 2005 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA “OJ L 256, 01.10.2005”
35. 2006 Council Decision 2006/560/JHA of 24 July 2006 amending Decision 2003/170/JHA on the common use of liaison officers posted abroad by the law enforcement agencies of the Member States “OJ L 219, 10.08.2006”
36. 2006 Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognitions to confiscation orders “OJ L 328, 24.11.206“(probably repealed before 1st December 2014)
37. 2006 Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union ” (so called “Swedish Initiative”) OJ L 386, 29.12.2006 OJ L 75, 15.03.2007″
38. 2007 Council Decision 2007/412/JHA of 12 June 2007 amending Decision 2002/348/JHA concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension “OJ L 155, 15.06.2007”
39. 2007 “Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States in the field of tracing and identification of proceeds from, or property related to, crime” “OJ L 332, 18.12.2007”
40. 2008 Council Decision 2008/206/JHA of 3 March 2008 defining 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) as a new psychoactive substance which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal provisions “OJ L 63, 07.03.2008”
41. 2008 Council Decision 2008/617/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the ‘ improvement of cooperation between the special intervention units of the Member States of the European Union in crisis situations “OJ L210, 06.08.2008”
42. 2008 Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings “OJ L 220, 18.08.2008”
43. 2008 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime “OJ L 300, 11.11.2008”
44. 2008 Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purposes of their enforcement in the European Union “OJ L 327, 05.12.2008”
45. 2008 Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions “OJ L337, 16.12.2008″
46. 2008 Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters “OJ L 350, 30.12.2008” (probably repealed before 1st December 2014)
47. 2008 Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism “OJ L 330, 09.12.2008”
48. 2008 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law “OJ L 328, 06.12.2008″
49. 2008 Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network “OJ L 348, 24.12.2008”
50. 2008 “Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters” “OJ L 350, 30.12.2008”
51. 2009 “Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial” “OJ L 81, 27.03.2009”
52. 2009 Council Decision2009/796/JHA of 4 June 2009 amending Decision 2002/956/JHA setting up a European Network for the Protection of Public Figures “OJ L 283, 30.10.2009”
53. 2009 “Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions of supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention” “OJ L 294, 11.11.2009”
54. 2009 Council Decision 2009/902/JHA of 30 November 2009 setting up a European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) and repealing Decision 2001/427/JHA “OJ L 321, 08.12.2009”
55. 2009 Council Decision 2009/917/JHA of 30 November 2009 on the use of information technology for customs purposes “OJ L 323, 10.12.2009”(the CIS database is also founded on a first pillar measure)
56. 2009 Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal matters “OJ L 328, 15.12.2009”
57. 2009 Council Framework Decision 2009/905/JHA of 30 November 2009 on accreditation of forensic service providers carrying out laboratory activities “OJ L 322, 09.12.2009”
58. 1999 Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Peru on precursors and chemical substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
(OJ L 324, 30.12.1995, p. 27–33)
59. 2009 Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America “OJ L 291, 07.11.2009”
60. 2008 “Council Decision 2008/651/CFSP/JHA of 30 June 2008 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of European Union-sourced passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs Service” “OJ L 213, 8.8.2008” (probably repealed before 1st December 2014)
61. 2006 Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on the processing of Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record Data “OJ L 86, 24.3.2006”(probably repealed before 1st December 2014)
62. 2009 Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America “OJ L 291, 07.11.2009”
63. 2009 “Council Decision 2009/933/CFSP of 30 November 2009 on the extension, on behalf of the European Union, of the territorial scope of the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America” “OJ L325, 11.12.2009”
Protection of financial Interest (PIF) Convention and its Protocols
64. 1995 Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests “OJC 316, 27.11.1995″
65. 1996 Council Act of 27 September 1996 drawing up a Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests “OJC 313, 23.10.1996″
66. 1997 Council Act of 19 June 1997 drawing up the Second Protocol of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests “OJC 221, 19.07.1997”
67. 2002 Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime “OJ L 63, 06.03.2002”
68. 2008 Council Decision 2008/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime “OJ L 138, 04.06.2009”
69. 2008 “Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime” “OJ L 210, 06.08.2008”
70. 2008 “Council Decision 2008/616JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime” “OJ L 210, 06.08.2008”
71. 2009 Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content f the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States “OJ L 93, 07.04.2009”
72. 2009 Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA “OJ L 93, 07.04.2009”
73. 2009 Council Decision 2009/371/JHA establishing the European Police Office (Europol) “OJ L 121, 15.05.2009″
74. 2009 “Council Decision 2009/934/JHA of 30 November 2009 adopting the implementing rules governing Europol’s relations with partners, including the exchange of personal data and classified information” “OJ L 325, 11.12.2009”
75. 2009 Council Decision 2009/935/JHA of 30 November 2009 determining the list of third countries with which Europol shall conclude agreements “OJ L 325, 11.12.2009”
76. 2009 Council Decision 2009/936/JHA of 30 November 2009 adopting the implementing rules for Europol analysis work files “OJ L 325, 11.12.2009”
77. 2009 Council Decision 2009/968/JHA of 30 November 2009 adopting the rules on the confidentiality of Europol information “OJ L 332, 17.12.2009”
78. 1999 “Council Decision of 2 December 1999 amending the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees, with regard to the establishment of remuneration, pensions and other financial entitlements in euro” “OJC 364, 17.12.1999”
79. 1999 Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees “OJC 26, 30.1.1999”
80. 2002 “Council Decision 2002/494/JHA of 13 June 2002 setting up a European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” “OJ L 167,26.06.2002”
81. 2003 “Council Decision 2003/335/JHA on the investigation and’ prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” “OJ L 118,08.05.2003”
Exchange of classified informations: There are several Agreements between third States and the European Union on security procedures for the exchange of classified information, or the protection of classified information, which have been concluded on the basis of Articles 24 and 38 TEU (version Treaty of Amsterdam).
82. 2004 Bosnia and Herzegovina (Council Decision 2004/731/EC of 26 July 2004) “OJ L 324, 27.10.2004 ”
83. 2004 Norway (Council Decision 2004/843/CFSP of 26 July 2004) “OJ L 362, 09.12.2004”
84. 2005 – The Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Council Decision 2005/296/CFSP/JHA of 24 January 2005) “OJ L 94, 13.06.2005”
85. 2005 Ukraine (Council Decision 2005/481/CFSP of 13 June 2005) “OJ L 172, 05.07.2005”
86. 2006 Croatia (Council Decision 2006/317/CFSP of 10 April 2006) “OJ LI 16, 29.04.2006”
87. 2006 Iceland (Council Decision 2006/467/CFSP of 21 November 2005) “OJ L 184, 06.07.2006”
88. 2007 The United States of America (Council Decision 2007/274/JHA of 23 April 2007) “OJ L 115, 03.05.2007”
89. 2008 Switzerland (Council Decision 2008/568/CFSP of 24 June 2005) “OJ L 181, 10.07.2008”
90. 2009 Russian Federation (Council Decision 2010/348/EC of 17 November 2009) “OJ L 155,22.06.2010”
91. 2000 “Council Decision 2000/586/JHA of 28 September 2000 establishing a procedure for amending Articles 40(4) and (5), 41(7) and 65((2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders.” OJ L 248 03.10.2000
92. 2003 Council Decision 2003/725/JHA of 2 October 2003 amending the provisions of Article 40(1) and (7) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders “OJ L 260, 11.10.2003”
93. 2006 Council Decision 2006/1007/JHA of 21 December 2006 amending Decision 2001/886/JFIA on the development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) “OJ L411, 30.12.2006”
94. 2007 Commission Decision 2007/171/EC of 16 March 2007 laying down the network requirements for the Schengen Information System II (third pillar) “OJ L 79, 20.3.2007”
95. 2007 “Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)” “OJ L 205, 07.08.2007”
96. 2007 “Council Decision 2007/472/EC of 25 June 2007 amending the Decision of the Executive Committee set up by the 1990 Schengen Convention, amending the Financial Regulation on the costs of installing and operating the technical support function for the Schengen Information System (C.SIS)” “OJ L 179, 7.7.2007”
97. 2007 “Council Decision 2007/801/EC of 6 December 2007 on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic” “OJ L 323, 8.12.2007”
98. 2008 Council Decision 2008/173/EC of 18 February 2008 on the tests of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) “OJ L 57, 1.3.2008”
99. 2008 Commission Decision 2008/334/JHA of 4 March 2008 adopting the SIRENE Manual and other implementing measures for the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) “OJ L 123, 8.5.2008”
100. 2008 “Council Decision 2008/328/EC of 18 April 2008 amending the Decision of the Executive Committee set up by the 1990 Schengen Convention, amending the Financial Regulation on the costs of installing and operating the technical support function for the Schengen Information System (C.SIS)” “OJ L 113, 25.4.2008”
101. 2008 Council Decision 2008/839/ JHA of 24 October 2008 on migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II “OJ L 299, 8.11.2008”
102. 2009 Commission Decision 2009/724/JHA of 17 September 2009 laying down the date for the completion of migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) “OJ L257, 30.9.2009”
103. 2009 “Council Decision 2009/914/EC of 30 November 2009 amending the Decision of the Executive Committee set up by the 1990 Schengen Convention, amending the Financial Regulation on the costs of installing and operating the technical support function for the Schengen Information System (C.SIS)” “OJ L323, 10.12.2009”
104. 2010 “Council Decision 2010/32/EC of 30 November 2009 amending the Decision of the Executive Committee set up by the 1990 Schengen Convention, amending the Financial Regulation on the costs of installing and operating the technical support function for the Schengen Information System (C.SIS)” “OJ L 14,20.1.2010”
105. 2008 “Council Decision 2004/849/EC of 25 October 2004 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and on the provisional application of certain provisions of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen Acquis” “OJ L368, 15.12.2004”
106. 2008 “Council Decision 2008/146/EC of 28 January 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis” “OJ L 53, 27.2.2008”
107. 1985 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 1985 Article 27(2) and (3) Article 39 (except (1) – (3)) Article 40 Article 42 and 43 (to the extent that they relate to article 40) Article 44 Article 46 Article 47 (except (2)(c) and (4)) Article 48 Article 49(b) – (f) Article 51 Article 54 Article 55 Article 56 Article 57 Article 58 Article 71 Article 72 Article 75 Article 76 Article 126 Article 127 Article 128 Article 129 Article 130 Final Act – Declaration N° 3 (concerning article 71(2))
108. “Accession Protocols: ( amended in conformity with article 1 (b) of CD 2000/365/EC and CD 2004/926/EC article 1) Italy: Articles 2,, 4 + common declaration on articles 2 and 3 to the extent it relates to article 2, Spain: Articles 2, 4 and Final Act, Part III, declaration 2 Portugal: Articles 2,, 4, 5 and 6 Greece: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and Final Act, Part III, declaration 2 Denmark: Articles 2,, 4 and 6 and Final Act Part III joint declaration 3 Finland: Articles 2,, 4 and 5 and Final Act, Part II joint declaration 3 Sweden: Articles 2,, 4 and 5 + Final Act, Part II Joint declaration 3”
109. 1993 SCH/Com-ex (93) 14 on improving practical judicial cooperation for combating drug trafficking
110. 1998 SCH/Com-ex (98) 26 def setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen
111. 1998 SCH/Com-ex (98)52 on the Handbook on cross-border police cooperation
112. 1999 SCH/Com-ex (99)6 on the Schengen acquis relating to telecommunications
113. 1999 SCH/Com-ex (99)7 rev 2 on liaison officers
114. 1999 SCH/Com-ex (99)8 rev 2 on general principles governing the payment of informers
115. 1994 SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev
116. 1999 SCH/Com-ex (99) 1 rev 2 (drugs situation)”
117. 1999 SCH/Com-ex (99) 11 rev 2 (agreement on cooperation in proceedings for road traffic offences)
118. 1996 SCH/Com-ex (96) decl 6 rev 2 (declaration on extradition)
119. 2000 Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of he United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis. OJ L131 1.62000
120. 2004 Council Decision 2004/926/EC of 22 December 2004 on the putting into effect of parts of the Schengen acquis by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland “OJ L 395, 31.12.2004”