Joint Investigation Teams in the European Union: From Theory to Practice

by Edited by Conny Rijken , Gert Vermeulen

• ISBN13: 9789067042154
• ISBN10: 9067042153
• Format: Hardcover
• Copyright: 2006-08-07
• Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Summary

Joint Investigation Teams have been adopted in several EU as well as non-EU documents as a new instrument to facilitate mutual legal assistance. This book provides professionals dealing with criminal cooperation with a theoretical and at the same time practical guide on how the instrument of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) can be used to maximum advantage.

Table of Contents

Introduction	V
Summary of contents	IX
List of abbreviations	XIX
Chapter I The legal and practical implementation of JITs: The bumpy road from EU to Member State level
Conny Rijken and Gert Vermeulen	1	(52)
1. Introduction	1	(1)
2. The THB-JIT project and the Drugs JIT	2	(8)
2.1 The THB-JIT project	2	(6)
2.1.1 The Europol initiative	2	(1)
2.1.2 The Dutch initiative	3	(1)
2.1.3 The relation between the two initiatives	4	(1)
2.1.4 The organisational structure of the THB-JIT project	5	(3)
2.2 The Drugs JIT	8	(2)
2.2.1 The establishment of the Drugs JIT	8	(1)
2.2.2 The composition of the Drugs JIT	9	(1)
3. General introduction to the legal framework of JITs	10	(14)
3.1 International legal instruments providing a legal basis for operating JITs	10	(3)
3.2 The legal framework of the instrument of a JIT	13	(11)
3.2.1 The involvement of Europol	18	(2)
3.2.2 Involvement of Eurojust	20	(1)
3.2.3 Legal implications for the Member States	20	(4)
4. To what extent has the legal framework on JITs properly been implemented in the participating Member States?	24	(26)
4.1 Belgium	24	(5)
4.2 Germany	29	(5)
4.3 The Netherlands	34	(10)
4.4 The United Kingdom	44	(6)
5. What can be the added value of a JIT and how can it be achieved?	50	(1)
6. Conclusion	51	(2)
Chapter II Law enforcement information exchange in the pre-operational phase of a JIT
Eveline De Wree	53	(32)
1. Sharing of intelligence and information	54	(18)
1.1 The identification of a JIT-worthy case	54	(4)
1.1.1 In a bottom-up initiative	54	(1)
1.1.2 In a top-down project	55	(3)
1.2 Finding possible partners for a JIT	58	(1)
1.3 The scope of shared intelligence	59	(4)
1.3.1 In a bottom-up initiative	59	(2)
1.3.2 In a top-down project	61	(2)
1.4 Type of data shared	63	(1)
1.5 Practical organisation	63	(9)
1.5.1 Sharing intelligence through national law enforcement agencies	63	(7)
1.5.2 Sharing intelligence through Europol	70	(2)
2. The use of a JIG	72	(6)
2.1 A new instrument	72	(1)
2.2 What is a JIG? Two perspectives	73	(2)
2.2.1 The JIG as an enforcement of the AWF	73	(1)
2.2.2 The JIG as an addition to the AWF	74	(1)
2.3 Problems and concerns relating to the use of a JIG	75	(3)
2.3.1 A JIG existing next to an AWF	75	(2)
2.3.2 What about a JIG in a bottom-up procedure?	77	(1)
2.3.3 Efficiency of a JIG	77	(1)
3. Towards conclusions: how should information exchange take place in this phase?	78	(7)
3.1 Recommendable characteristics	78	(3)
3.1.1 Rapidly and efficiently	78	(1)
3.1.2 Using available information and instruments	79	(1)
3.1.3 Aimed at identifying links	80	(1)
3.1.4 With the involvement of judicial actors	81	(1)
3.2 Challenges and questions to be answered	81	(2)
3.2.1 Bilateral or centralised?	81	(1)
3.2.2 Stimulating information flows	82	(1)
3.3 A stepping-stone to the operational phase	83	(2)
Chapter III Law enforcement information exchange in the operational phase of a JIT
Annelies Balcaen	85	(34)
1. Information exchange between the members of a JIT	86	(21)
1.1 Legal basis of the right for seconded members to provide the JIT with information which is available in the home country	86	(10)
1.1.1 Implementation legislation	87	(1)
1.1.2 The Netherlands	87	(1)
1.1.3 The United Kingdom	88	(1)
1.1.4 Belgium	88	(1)
1.1.5 Germany	89	(1)
1.1.6 Information available to seconded members	89	(1)
1.1.7 The Netherlands	89	(2)
1.1.8 The United Kingdom	91	(1)
1.1.9 Belgium	92	(2)
1.1.10 Germany	94	(2)
1.2 Obstacles in the information exchange between the members of a JIT	96	(8)
1.2.1 Differences in national legislation	96	(5)
1.2.2 Lack of availability of information to the members of the JIT	101	(2)
1.2.3 Differences in the categorisation of information	103	(1)
1.2.4 Reluctance to share information	104	(1)
1.3 Right to use information lawfully obtained within the JIT in the home country	104	(6)
1.3.1 The Netherlands	105	(1)
1.3.2 The United Kingdom	106	(1)
1.3.3 Belgium	106	(1)
1.3.4 Germany	106	(1)
2. Information exchange with other EU Member States not party to the JIT	107	(3)
3. Information exchange with third countries	110	(1)
4. Data protection guarantees within a JIT	110	(4)
4.1 The Netherlands	113	(1)
4.2 The United Kingdom	113	(1)
4.3 Belgium	114	(1)
4.4 Germany	114	(1)
5. Conclusions and recommendations	114	(5)
Chapter IV Judicial cooperation in criminal matters: mutual legal assistance
Els De Busser	119	(40)
1. Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters	119	(24)
1.1 Traditional mutual legal assistance	119	(3)
1.2 Legal bases of joint investigation teams	122	(10)
1.2.1 General	122	(3)
1.2.2 Legal basis of the THB-JIT project	125	(1)
1.2.2.1 A challenging legal basis	125	(1)
1.2.2.2 Added value	129	(2)
1.2.3 Legal basis of the Drugs JIT	131	(1)
1.3 Setting up a JIT	132	(11)
1.3.1 Formalities fulfilled in setting up the Drugs JIT	132	(1)
1.3.2 The relationship between the Drugs JIT and the 'mother case' in the United Kingdom	133	(2)
1.3.3 Model agreement for EU Member States	135	(1)
1.3.4 Model agreement for third states	136	(1)
1.3.5 Scope	137	(1)
1.3.5.1 Objective(s) of the JIT	137	(1)
1.3.5.2 Police or judicial cooperation in criminal matters?	140	(1)
1.3.5.3 The nature of the offence	141	(2)
2. Special aspects of the (use of the) JIT	143	(13)
2.1 Presence of foreign police officers in a state	143	(3)
2.2 Investigative measures	146	(2)
2.2.1 Problems concerning investigate measures	147	(1)
2.2.2 Number and variety of investigative measures	148	(1)
2.3 Evidence	148	(13)
2.3.1 Disclosure	149	(1)
2.3.1.1 General	149	(1)
2.3.1.2 THB-JIT project	149	(1)
2.3.1.3 Drugs JIT	152	(1)
2.3.2 Telephone interception	152	(2)
2.3.3 Civilian and criminal infiltration and the use of informers	154	(1)
2.3.4 Use of information gathered in the context of a JIT	154	(2)
3. Prosecution	156	(1)
4. Conclusion	157	(2)
Chapter V The role of Europol and Eurojust in Joint Investigation Teams
Innette Herz	159	(42)
1. Introduction	159	(2)
2. Europol and Eurojust as institutions	161	(4)
2.1 Europol	161	(2)
2.2 Eurojust	163	(2)
3. Legal framework for participation in JITs	165	(12)
3.1 Europol	165	(7)
3.1.1 Europol Convention	165	(1)
3.1.2 Treaty on European Union	166	(1)
3.1.3 EU Convention on Mutual Assistance/Framework Decision on JITs	166	(3)
3.1.4 Council Recommendations	169	(1)
3.1.5 Amendment of Europol Convention	169	(2)
3.1.6 Agreement between Eurojust and Europol	171	(1)
3.2 Eurojust	172	(1)
3.2.1 Treaty on European Union	172	(1)
3.2.2 Council Decision 2002	172	(1)
3.3 National legislation	173	(4)
3.3.1 The Netherlands	173	(1)
3.3.2 The United Kingdom	174	(1)
3.3.3 Belgium	175	(1)
3.3.4 Germany	175	(2)
4. Involvement in the THB-JIT project	177	(10)
4.1 Europol	177	(8)
4.1.1 Role and responsibilities	177	(2)
4.1.2 Information exchange/Europol as a facilitator	179	(2)
4.1.3 Problems met by Europol	181	(4)
4.2 Eurojust	185	(2)
4.2.1 Role and responsibilities	185	(1)
4.2.2 Information exchange/Eurojust as a facilitator	186	(1)
4.2.3 Problems met by Eurojust	186	(1)
5. Excursus: involvement in the JIT on drug trafficking	187	(8)
5.1 Europol	188	(5)
5.1.1 Information exchange/Europol as a facilitator	188	(2)
5.1.2 Role of the Europol analyst	190	(1)
5.1.3 Problems met by Europol	191	(2)
5.2 Eurojust	193	(2)
5.2.1 Information exchange/Eurojust as a facilitator	193	(1)
5.2.2 Problems met by Eurojust	194	(1)
6. Conclusions and recommendations	195	(6)
6.1 Europol	196	(2)
6.2 Eurojust	198	(3)
Chapter VI Sociological aspects regarding the set up and management of a Joint Investigation Team
Markus Mayer	201	(18)
1. The three cornerstones for the establishment of a JIT	201	(1)
2. Legal basis	202	(2)
2.1 Implementation of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance on a national level	202	(1)
2.2 Review of the possibilities to cooperate with other countries	203	(1)
3. Selection of a case – the setting up of a JIT	204	(5)
3.1 Specifications made by the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance	204	(1)
3.2 How can a JIT be initiated?	204	(4)
3.2.1 Top-down: identifying a field of crime and selecting a case	204	(3)
3.2.2 Bottom-up: processing a demand related to an ongoing investigation	207	(1)
3.2.3 Outside-in: processing of a demand from abroad	207	(1)
3.3 Conclusion	208	(1)
4. Management of a JIT	209	(8)
4.1 Location and organisational structure	209	(1)
4.2 Finance and funding	210	(1)
4.3 Labour law aspects	211	(1)
4.4 Other legal aspects	211	(1)
4.5 Hierarchical structure	212	(1)
4.6 Language and culture in JITs	213	(3)
4.6.1 Emergence of subgroups	213	(2)
4.6.2 The need for translation	215	(1)
4.6.3 Restrictions due to a lack of language skills	215	(1)
4.7 Team building	216	(3)
4.7.1 Inauguration of new team members	216	(1)
4.7.2 Pairing	217	(1)
5. Conclusion	217	(2)
Chapter VII Conclusions and Recommendations
Conny Rijken	219
1. Conclusion	219	(6)
1.1 The evaluation of the results of the projects under research	220	(1)
1.2 Conditions on the operational level for the establishment of a successful JIT	221	(4)
1.2.1 Conditions in the preparatory phase of a JIT	221	(2)
1.2.2 Conditions in the operational phase of a JIT	223	(1)
1.2.3 Conditions for the involvement of Europol and Eurojust in a JIT	224	(1)
2. Recommendations for the use of the JIT instruments	225	(4)
2.1 Recommendations for the police	225	(1)
2.2 Recommendations for the prosecution	226	(1)
2.3 Recommendations for policy makers	227	(1)
2.4 Recommendations for the legislator	228	(1)
3. Final remarks	229