Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2004)623 - European Police College (CEPOL) as a body of the EU - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2004)623 - European Police College (CEPOL) as a body of the EU. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2004)623  |
| date | 01-10-2004 |
Conclusion 47 of the Tampere European Council called for the establishment of a European Police College for the training of senior law-enforcement officials, which should operate as a network of existing national training institutes. On 22 December 2000, the Council adopted a Decision establishing a European Police College i, where the aim and objectives of CEPOL are stated.
Because the Council Decision of 22 December 2000 provided it with neither legal personality nor a permanent seat, CEPOL encountered a series of difficulties, partially addressed by a decision of February of 2002 to provisionally house its Secretariat at the Danish National Police School. During its first year of existence, it could not execute its budget nor set up a Secretariat. Implementation of the decision of the heads of State and government meeting in the European Council in Brussels on 13 December 2003 giving CEPOL a permanent seat in Bramshill i should put an end to this problem. Nonetheless, other structural problems remain, notably due to the fact that the budget is financed through Member States' contributions, so that CEPOL has had to make recourse to the OISIN II and AGIS programs in order to carry some tasks like the development of the European Police Learning Net (EPLN).
Despite these difficulties, in its three years of existence CEPOL has achieved considerable progress, as acknowledged in CEPOL's three years report i, within the limits of individual police schools' abilities to properly organize courses and of an understaffed Secretariat. Participation also suffered from insufficient knowledge of foreign languages among potential beneficiaries and financial problems limiting the participation of candidate countries.
The three-year report recommended that CEPOL should have legal personality, an adequately staffed Secretariat and a permanent seat. As to CEPOL's structure, a majority of Member States expressed their preference for the continuation of the network.
Two Member State initiatives were subsequently presented to amend the Council Decision of 22 December 2000 in order to give CEPOL legal personality i and to establish CEPOL's permanent seat in Bramshill i. Although their expected adoption will help CEPOL to deal with some of the most pressing issues, these two initiatives do not tackle all the institutional changes required to ensure efficient and effective development of CEPOL, as stated in conclusions adopted by the Council i that noted the intention of the Commission to bring forward additional proposals.
Such a proposal should aim at providing CEPOL a better legal framework by giving CEPOL legal personality, a permanent seat, financing from the Community's budget, clear staff rules, and a streamlined governance structure, thus improving Member States' law-enforcement services' ability to face the challenges posed by cross-border crime.
Contents
Cooperation in law-enforcement training in the European Union is a means towards achieving an area of freedom, security and justice in the sense of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission's Communication on 'Enhancing Police and Customs Cooperation in the European Union' i identifies training as one of the key issues to improve cooperation in criminal matters in the European Union and stresses the need to carry out common training not only for police but for other law-enforcement services of the Member States (i.e.customs officials).
CEPOL training should increase their knowledge of the instruments at law-enforcement services' disposal in the European Union, of the different national systems, of technical terminology in different languages, of ethical and human rights issues, as well as an awareness of belonging to the European Union. It should also aim at increasing the quality of training, by establishing not only common curricula and methodologies, but also a CEPOL certification.
Providing CEPOL with financing from the Community's budget will increase its possibilities to carry out its tasks and perform new ones i. Making CEPOL staff subject to the rules and regulations applicable to the officials and other servants of the institutions of the European Communities will increase CEPOL's possibilities to recruit most qualified people.
Although the Member States' different approaches to training should not be a problem in itself, a common methodology and shared standards of quality are necessary in order to ensure a certain minimum level of law-enforcement training across the EU, at least in those areas of common interest. In respect of the principle of subsidiarity, CEPOL should ensure the European dimension of law-enforcement training as a complement to training done by national training institutes that will continue to be the main sources of training for law-enforcement officials in the EU. Thus, CEPOL should focus on the development of common curricula and teaching methods, including virtual training modules, in priority areas of law-enforcement co-operation, to be applied in a uniform manner in all national training institutes.
The current draft proposal not only foresees giving CEPOL the task of organizing common courses - either centrally or in a decentralized fashion - but puts a stronger emphasis on CEPOL's responsibility for developing these common methodologies and standards, and for evaluating their implementation through a certification mechanism.
Article 41 i TEU establishes that 'operating expenditure to which the implementation of those provisions (those in Title VI TEU) gives rise shall also be charged to the budget of the European Communities except where the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise'.
To date, CEPOL has been financed by contributions from the Member States. This method of financing has led to a series of problems, such as late payments or a lack of willingness by individual Member States to make funds available to finance important projects, such as the development of the European Police Learning Net (EPLN), a virtual learning tool which has been developed by the Dutch police school (LSOP), with support from other training institutes and the OISIN and AGIS programs. i
The fact that CEPOL has had to recurrently request funding from EU programs points to the need for it to have Community funding. Giving CEPOL a subsidy from the general budget of the European Communities would ensure that its work in building a European dimension of law-enforcement cooperation will not depend on the vicissitudes of national budgetary procedures and priorities.
CEPOL already performs a series of tasks that could not be performed either by the Commission or by the individual law-enforcement training institutes of the Member States, that have neither a regulatory nor an executive character, in a policy area covered by Title VI of the Treaty on European Union.
Building on the precedent set by Eurojust i, it seems that the best option is to transform CEPOL into a body of the European Union. The present proposal for a Council Decision establishing CEPOL as a body of the European Union has been drafted taking into account the CEPOL three-year report i of 9 December 2003 and the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Brussels on 12 and 13 December 2003, the Meta-Evaluation on the Community Agency System i carried out by the Commission, the Communication from the Commission on the operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies i, and the Commission Regulation of 23 December 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities i.
The legal basis for the current proposal is Article 30 i (c) of the Treaty on European Union, establishing that 'common action in the field of police cooperation shall include (...) cooperation and joint initiatives in training...', combined with Article 34 i (c), establishing that the Council shall 'take measures and promote cooperation' and to that end may, unanimously, 'adopt decisions for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of this title, excluding any approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.'
Title VI on provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters creates a Union responsibility in these fields, without prejudice to the powers of the European Community. This responsibility must however be exercised in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that the principle of subsidiarity as enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall be respected. The proposal for a Decision satisfies these criteria.
Individual national administrations are not able to ensure co-operation in the field of law-enforcement training to the degree required by the European Council when it called for the creation of CEPOL in Tampere, in 1999. The current CEPOL set up, while proving positive, has shown its limitations. A Union structure is therefore necessary to improve operational co-operation among the national training institutes and ensure the EU dimension of law-enforcement training.
The proposal establishes a body of the EU which would be subject to clear and uniform rules contained in a Council Decision, which is the appropriate instrument for establishing EU bodies. The proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the aforementioned objectives.
Article 1 establishes CEPOL as a body of the EU.
Article 2 gives CEPOL legal personality. In order to avoid issues of interpretation, the article gives CEPOL 'the most extensive legal and contractual capacity available to legal persons under national law'.
Article 3 foresees that the protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities shall apply to CEPOL, its director and its staff.
Article 4 gives CEPOL its permanent seat in Bramshill, U.K. This Article is in line with the decision of the heads of state and government of the Member States meeting in the European Council on 13 December 2003 i.
Article 5 establishes the purpose of CEPOL and is broadly in line with the aims set out in the original Council Decision creating CEPOL.
This Article, though, differs from the original Council decision in that it also attempts to broaden CEPOL's scope to better take into account the spirit of point 47 of the Tampere conclusions, which actually called for the establishment of a European Police College to train 'law-enforcement officials.' Although some CEPOL courses at present are already open to customs officials, its mandate is strictly to train 'senior police officers' of the Member States.
The same reasoning underlies the fact that this Article refers to 'senior and other law-enforcement officials playing a key role in the fight against cross-border crime', since there may be officials who, without being considered 'senior' according to the definition of this term in their Member State, play a key role in law-enforcement cooperation at EU level.
Article 6 sets out CEPOL's objectives. In line with the original Council Decision creating CEPOL, it states that CEPOL shall complement the actions of the relevant training institutes of the Member States.
However, it underlines the need to achieve both quantitative and qualitative improvements in law-enforcement cooperation in the EU and identifies examples of key subjects (such as knowledge of the institutions of the EU, Europol's and Eurojust's structure and functioning), that make up the basis for CEPOL common curricula to be developed in future.
Article 7 establishes CEPOL's tasks. In comparison with the original Council Decision, this Article extends the tasks performed by CEPOL to developing and providing common standards and course modules to be used by the training institutes of the Member States, as well as to evaluating their implementation. CEPOL should thus be able to ensure the uniform application of both common standards and certain key courses across the EU, so as to ensure that all law-enforcement officials have a similar level of knowledge and competence in certain subject areas considered essential to the best performance of their duties.
Article 8 establishes CEPOL's organs: the Governing Board and the Director. The Permanent Secretariat disappears, since the CEPOL Director is assisted by a staff (see Article 11).
Article 9 establishes the composition, decision-making methods and competences of the CEPOL Governing Board. This Article establishes that the Governing Board is made up of one representative per Member State and one for the Commission (who becomes a full member), each having one vote. National representatives should preferably be the heads of national training institutes, but it is now left to each Member State to decide on its representation at the CEPOL Governing Board. Also, the number of members of the Governing Board is being limited, provided that there is still a possibility for members to be accompanied by experts. The representatives of the General Secretariat of the Council and Europol attend meetings as non-voting observers.
The Article also represents a change from current practice in that it establishes that the normal decision-making procedure of the Governing Board shall be simple majority voting, except for specific cases set out in the Council Decision, which shall be decided by a two third majority. The move from unanimity to majority voting is in line with Article 34 i (c) TEU.
Article 10 establishes the competences and responsibilities of the CEPOL Director. In contrast with Council decision of 22 December 2000 it provides that he or she shall be responsible not just for the day-to-day management of CEPOL's work, including its staff, but also for the new tasks of evaluation and certification. The CEPOL Director shall be responsible to the Governing Board.
Article 11 establishes that a CEPOL staff shall support the Director in the discharge of his or her duties. The article also foresees that the rules as contained in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities shall apply to the staff of CEPOL, including its Director.
Article 12 calls for the setting up of CEPOL national units in the Member States. This Article responds to one of the main conclusions of the CEPOL three-year report, in which a majority of the Governing Board considered that the national training institutes of the Member States would continue to be the starting point of training in law-enforcement, and that the network was the best working method for CEPOL. It also aims at avoiding duplications and making an optimal use of knowledge and resources at the disposal of the national training institutes, allowing national training institutes to participate in the key tasks of planning, implementation, evaluation and certification of training activities.
In order to guarantee good flow of communication, the Article states that individual training institutes may have direct contact with the CEPOL Director, as long as they keep the CEPOL national unit(s) informed.
Article 13 spells out the different institutions and bodies with which CEPOL should cooperate and provides explicitly for the taking into account of recommendations made by Europol or the Task Force of Police Chiefs.
Articles 14, 15 and 16 are the standard provisions on the budget of a European agency and have been taken from the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation establishing an Agency for the Management of External Borders i. They represent a considerable change from the present Council Decision in that, at present, CEPOL's budget is financed through member States' contributions. The move to give CEPOL funding from the Community's budget derives from Article 41 i TEU. This should represent a major progress in CEPOL's development.
Article 17 regards combating fraud and is a standard article for European agencies.
Article 18 establishes that, without prejudice to the CEPOL Governing Board's rules of procedure, the official linguistic arrangements of the European Union shall apply to CEPOL.
Article 19 establishes public access to documents and is standard for EU bodies.
Article 20 is a transitional provision relating to the move of CEPOL's Permanent Secretariat from Copenhagen to Bramshill, U.K.
Article 21 is also transitional and establishes a six-month period for Member States to designate their CEPOL national units and communicate the relevant information to the Commission and the Council's Secretariat General.
Article 22 establishes the necessary mechanisms to ensure regular evaluation of CEPOL's work and the implementation of the Council Decision. This article is in line with existing guidelines on evaluating the functioning of Community agencies.
Article 23 establishes the repeal of the Council Decision of 22 December 2000.
Article 24 deals with the date of effect of the Decision.
Annex 1 establishes guidelines for the nomination of the CEPOL Director, in accordance with the ones used for the nomination of heads of European agencies.