Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Union as an Actor in the Fight Against Terrorism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover A War on Terror?

Abstract

The thwarted plot to attack the Christmas market in Strasbourg in 2000; the horrible bombings in Madrid in March 2004 and London in July 2005, which slaughtered a number of civilians; the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film director and critic of Islam, in Amsterdam in November 2004; the failed suitcase bombings on regional trains in Germany on 31 July 2006; menaces of the al-Qaeda network to eye France as one of its next targets in September 2006; and eventually the fact that important wirepullers of the dreadful attacks in New York on 11 September 2001 resided in Germany and Spain reminded European governments anew that Europe is not immune from contemporary forms of terrorism, i.e. international and Islamic terrorism. It also again raised awareness that preventing terrorist attacks and prosecuting terrorist offenders cannot be solved by the nation state alone but by – the indispensable – international cooperation, because terrorist groupings operate and cooperate across borders and terrorism is a threat common to all democratic societies, which requests concerted actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    TREVI expresses the acronym for Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism, and International Violence and is in memory of the famous fountain in Rome, where the meeting of justice and home affairs ministers deciding on the establishing of TREVI took place in 1975.

  2. 2.

    Vennemann (2003a), p. 222.

  3. 3.

    Anderson et al. (1995), p. 53. For the development of the different TREVI working groups, see Gueydan (1997), p. 105.

  4. 4.

    Vennemann (2003a), p. 220

  5. 5.

    Messelken (2003), p. 9.

  6. 6.

    Anderson et al. (1995), p. 56.

  7. 7.

    Eventually, the TREVI working groups were a pathfinder for several well-established institutions today, such as Europol, which were formally adopted after the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 (see below). By that time, the TREVI structures were integrated into the European Union.

  8. 8.

    After the Second World War, the Council of Europe especially fostered judicial cooperation in the criminal law field by a series of conventions. A particular convention in the field of terrorism is the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, on which the European States agreed within the Council of Europe in 1977 (ETS No. 90, entry into force on 4 August 1978). The main element of the Convention is the principal abolishment of the political offence exception for extradition for specific enumerated offences. In 2005, the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism was adopted (ETS No. 196, entry into force on 1 June 2007). The Convention provides for ways of Member States on how to prevent terrorism: First, criminal offences for certain acts that may lead to the commission of terrorist offences (namely: public provocation, recruitment, and training) are established. Second, co-operation on prevention both internally and internationally is reinforced.

  9. 9.

    EU TE-SAT report 2002, p. 20 and 21; Javier Solana, EU High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Council Thessaloniki of 20 June 2003, p. 5 (http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/76255.pdf, last visited: July 2009); Wilkinson (2005).

  10. 10.

    Drake (2000), p. 5.

  11. 11.

    Single European Act of 1987, OJ (Official Journal) L 169 of 29 June 1987.

  12. 12.

    On 26 March 1995, the 1990 Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 1985 came into force. The Schengen area is not identical with the EU area because some EU Member States, such as the UK and Ireland, are not parties, but apply only certain provisions. In addition, non-EU Member States, such as Norway, Ireland, and Switzerland, are part of the Schengen area. With the Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen acquis was integrated into the EU’s legal and institutional framework.

  13. 13.

    For the cooperation concerning the foreign and security policy, see Eaton (1994), pp. 215ff.; for cooperation in justice and home affairs issues, see Peers (2006), p. 6.

  14. 14.

    The most important one is the European Community (EC), based on the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Reference is made in the following to the EC only. Since 2002, the EC picked up the European Coal and Steel Community.

  15. 15.

    For consolidated versions of the treaties, see OJ L 325 of 24 December 2002.

  16. 16.

    For a detailed analysis of the Community method vs. intergovernmental method, see for example Demaret (1994), pp. 3ff.; Oppermann, § 6 mn. 6ff.

  17. 17.

    Pechstein and Koenig (2000), mn. 92; Schweitzer and Hummer (1996) mn. 66.

  18. 18.

    Cf., among others, Den Boer (2003a), p. 188; Messelken (2003); Verbruggen (2004), p. 303; Monar (2004), p. 140; Dittrich (2005); Keohane (2005).

  19. 19.

    Monar (2004), p. 141.

  20. 20.

    Joint actions and common positions may be adopted in isolation or as a means of implementing a common strategy. A joint action addresses a specific situation where operational action by the EU is deemed necessary, while common positions define the approach of the Union to a particular matter.

  21. 21.

    Monar (2005b), pp. 29ff.; Jour-Schröder and Wasmeier (2003/2004), mn. 57.

  22. 22.

    The European Council convenes the Heads of State or Government of the Member States and the President of the Commission. Its role is to provide the EU with political impetus on key issues (cf. Art. 4 TEU).

  23. 23.

    23 Council Doc. SI (1999) 800. The conclusions can be retrieved at the following website: http://presidency.finland.fi/doc/liite/treconen.rtf (last visited July 2009).

  24. 24.

    Monar (2004), p. 140.

  25. 25.

    Art. 34 (2a) TEU. Common positions define the approach of the Union to a particular JHA matter. It is highly disputed whether common positions have only political significance or whether they are legally binding in terms of international public law. They are akin to common positions adopted in the CFSP (Art. 12, 15 TEU), however, it is questionable whether one common position can regulate both CFSP and JHA matters because structure and objectives of the second and third pillar and procedures are different. Nevertheless, the Council based two common positions relating to combating terrorism both on Art. 15 and 34 (Common Positions 2001/930/CFSP and Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, OJ L 344 of 28 December 2001, p. 90/93). This shows again the “cross-pillar” nature of terrorism.

  26. 26.

    Art. 34(2d)TEU. The main issue is that conventions have only binding effect after their ratifications by the Member States.

  27. 27.

    The main consequence is that an individual can not rely on provisions of a framework decision if a Member State fails to transpose it. Nevertheless, the ECJ conferred indirect effects to framework decisions. In the “Pupino judgment” (Case C-105/03), the ECJ ruled that national law must be interpreted in conformity with the provisions of framework decisions.

  28. 28.

    They must be distinguished from decisions as provided for in the first pillar, Art. 249 TEC.

  29. 29.

    The Amsterdam Treaty transferred these areas from Title VI TEU to the EC Treaty, but maintains intergovernmental elements for a transitional period. Cf. Art. 67 TEC. Details at Peers (2006), 2.2.2.

  30. 30.

    Resolution 1390(2002), which adjusts the scope of sanctions concerning the freezing of funds, visa ban, etc. imposed by Resolutions 1267(1999) and 1333(2000).

  31. 31.

    Resolution 1373(2001).

  32. 32.

    Meyer (2007), p. 7; Jimeno-Bulnes (2004), p. 246f.

  33. 33.

    For the first UN regime, this was Common Position 2002/402/CFSP of 27 May 2002 concerning restrictive measures against Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaida organisation, and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with them, OJ L 139 of 29 May 2002, p. 4. The EU’s legal bases for the second UN regime is Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344 of 28 December 2001, p. 93.

  34. 34.

    Vennemann (2003a), p. 242.

  35. 35.

    ECJ Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, (“Kadi and Al Barakaat”) mn. 226, 227. See also Meyer (2008), p. 81; Karayigit (2006), p. 394.

  36. 36.

    National authorities are bound by the Regulation and can only issue acts enforcing the provisions of the EC Regulation. Meyer (2007), p. 9.

  37. 37.

    See Art. 1 (4), (5), (6) Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

  38. 38.

    Critical regarding the legal basis for the EU’s smart sanction regime also Bartelt and Zeitler (2003), p. 715. Cf. also Hörmann (2007), pp. 120ff.

  39. 39.

    Knelangen (2008), pp. 118/119; Monar (2004), p. 150 who emphasises that the EU established structures and possibilities to act, however there was no legal acquis on terrorism at the moment of the attacks on 11 September 2001.

  40. 40.

    Council Doc. SN 140/01.

  41. 41.

    Council Doc. 7233/1/07 REV 1.

  42. 42.

    Council Doc. 14469/4/05 REV 4.

  43. 43.

    Conclusions and Plan of Action of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting on 21 September 2001, Council Doc. SN 140/01, which headed measures to be taken under the following five objectives: (1) Enhancing police and judicial cooperation; (2) Developing international legal instruments; (3) Putting and end to the funding of terrorism; (4) Strengthening air security; and (5) Coordinating the European Union’s global action.

  44. 44.

    Knelangen (2008), p. 118; Bossong (2008b), p. 8

  45. 45.

    Monar (2007), p. 312.

  46. 46.

    Cf. Zimmermann (2006), pp. 125, 127.

  47. 47.

    The Declaration of the European Council of 25 March 2004 (Council Doc. 7906/04) identifies seven objectives to combat terrorism, which build the fundaments of the strategy of 2005.

  48. 48.

    Council Doc. 14469/4/05 REV 4, p. 3, no. 23, no. 33. Emphasis added by author.

  49. 49.

    COM(2007) 649.

  50. 50.

    COM(2007) 651.

  51. 51.

    COM(2005) 315.

  52. 52.

    Council Doc. 14781/1/05 REV 1. Elaborately on the EU’s response to radicalisation and recruitment Dittrich (2007), pp. 54 ff.

  53. 53.

    COM(2004) 698; COM(2004) 700; COM(2004) 701; COM(2004) 702.

  54. 54.

    For a detailed analysis of the harmonisation of criminal law in the European Union, see Sieber (2008), p. 385ff.

  55. 55.

    OJ L 164 of 22 June 2002, p. 3.

  56. 56.

    Peers (2003), p. 228; Vennemann (2003a), p. 235f.

  57. 57.

    Reduced to 8 years if the group has only threatened to commit such terrorist offences (Art. 5(2) sentence 2).

  58. 58.

    Other provisions of the FD compel Member States to foresee the liability of and penalties for legal persons (Art. 7, 8), and to take jurisdiction (Art. 9). As regards liability of and penalties for legal persons, the FD follows a common pattern of other FDs, which harmonise substantive criminal law. In contrast, the rules on jurisdiction are rather extensive compared with other FDs (see Peers (2003), p. 233). Art. 10 relates to the protection of, and assistance to, victims.

  59. 59.

    Vennemann (2003a), p. 234; Symeonidou-Kastanidou (2004), p. 17.

  60. 60.

    COM(2001) 521, p. 7.

  61. 61.

    Bures (2006), p. 67.

  62. 62.

    See for this problem in general Pastor-Nunoz (2008), p. 73.

  63. 63.

    Vennemann (2003a), pp. 256–258.

  64. 64.

    Bunyan (2002); Bures (2006), p. 67 with reference to the report by the EU Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights.

  65. 65.

    Vennemann (2003a), pp. 236f. Recital 11 explicitly excludes freedom fighters and state terrorism from the ambit of the FD.

  66. 66.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, OJ L 330 of 9 December 2008, p.21. The acts are defined in the new Art. 3 (1) of the FD.

  67. 67.

    EP, legislative resolution of 23 September 2008, T6-0435/2008.

  68. 68.

    Zimmermann (2009), p. 6. For the problems regarding the implementation of the new FD into the German legal order, see Sieber (2009).

  69. 69.

    Art. 5, 6, and 7 of the Convention, ETS No. 196.

  70. 70.

    OJ L 69 of 16 March 2005, p. 67.

  71. 71.

    Art. 2, 3, 4 of the FD. Cf. also Art. 2, 4, and 5 of the CoE Cybercrime-Convention (ETS No. 185).

  72. 72.

    For the use of the Cybercrime-Convention against terrorist attacks to the Internet, see Sieber (2006), pp. 395ff.

  73. 73.

    Recitals 2 and 8 of the FD. See also COM(2002) 173.

  74. 74.

    Gercke (2005), p. 468.

  75. 75.

    Council FD 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18 June 2002, p.1.

  76. 76.

    Wilkinson (2005).

  77. 77.

    For a definition of the mutual recognition principle, see COM(2000) 495; Vernimmen and Surano (2008), p. 23.

  78. 78.

    In principle, the final decision on the execution of the EAW should be taken within a period of 60 days after the arrest of the requested person. If the requested person consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution should be taken within 10 days (Art. 17 FDEAW).

  79. 79.

    Art. 23 FDEAW stipulates that the transfer shall be effectuated no later than 10 days after the final decision on execution of the EAW.

  80. 80.

    Art. 2 (2) FDEAW.

  81. 81.

    This argument was, among others, put forward by the Belgian association “Advocaten voor de Wereld” before the European Court of Justice (Case C-303/05). However, the ECJ rejected the objections of the association by arguing that the FD does not seek to harmonise the criminal offences in question and that it is therefore up to each Member State to define the offences and penalties applicable for a non-verification of double criminality.

  82. 82.

    Plachta (2003), p. 185.

  83. 83.

    Cf. Vennemann (2003b), p. 114, who puts forward true counter-arguments. Mainly, the FD itself contains a human rights clause to which the Member States are bound in case of execution of warrants. Most EU Member States maintain this limitation as a “European ordre public clause”, which excludes the recognition of requests in the cases described by the critics.

  84. 84.

    Commission press release IP/01/1284 of 19 September 2001.

  85. 85.

    Zimmermann (2006), p. 131.

  86. 86.

    Wahl (2009).

  87. 87.

    Vennemann (2003a), p. 231; Glaeßner and Lorenz (2005), p. 32.

  88. 88.

    Den Boer and Monar (2002), p. 21.

  89. 89.

    Den Boer (2003b), p. 5; Messelken (2003), p. 14.

  90. 90.

    The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, OJ C 53 of 3 March 2005, p. 1 – the successor of the Tampere Programme of 1999.

  91. 91.

    Spence (2007a), p. 2; Muguruza (2001), p. 234.

  92. 92.

    Cf. also Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Prevention of and the Fight against Terrorist Financing, COM(2004) 700, Annex 2 and Annex 3; Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Revised Strategy on Terrorist Financing, Council Doc. 11778/08 of 11 July 2008.

  93. 93.

    OJ L 68 of 15 March 2005, p. 49.

  94. 94.

    Kilchling (2006), p. 89.

  95. 95.

    FD on the execution in the EU of orders freezing property or evidence OJ L 196 of 2 August 2003, p. 45. FD on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, OJ L 328 of 24 November 2006, p. 59.

  96. 96.

    COM(2001) 611. See also associated measures: Regulation “on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community”, which harmonises rules for the control of cash flow at the EU’s external borders (OJ L 309 of 25 November 2005, p. 9), and Regulation laying down rules on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds (OJ L 345 of 8 December 2006).

  97. 97.

    Mitsilegas and Gilmore (2007), p. 119.

  98. 98.

    OJ L 309 of 25 November 2005, p. 15.

  99. 99.

    Art. 47 (2), 95 TEC. Because of the criminal law implications of the AML Directives acting upon the basis of the first pillar is highly disputed and it is argued that they should have been enacted via the third pillar (Art. 29 ff TEU). Cf. Mitsilegas and Gilmore (2007), p. 136; Hecker (2007) § 8 mn. 9ff.

  100. 100.

    Sommer (2005), p. 50.

  101. 101.

    Art. 3 (5 f) of the Directive: “all offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of more than one year or, as regards those States which have a minimum threshold for offences in their legal system, all offences punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a minimum of more than six months”.

  102. 102.

    Art. 1 (4): “terrorist financing means the provision or collection of funds, by any means, directly or indirectly, with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out any of the offences within the meaning of Art. 1–4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism”.

  103. 103.

    Cf. Art. 3 (8) “natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions and immediate family members, or persons known to be close associates, of such persons”. Hetzer (2008), p. 469 notes that the legislator mainly envisaged foreign higher ranking politicians, officials, and officers in countries where corruption is prevalent.

  104. 104.

    Details in Recital 20 and Art. 23 of the 3rd AML Directive.

  105. 105.

    Mitsilegas and Gilmore (2007), p. 128.

  106. 106.

    Kilchling (2004), p. 203; Kilchling (2001), p. 17.

  107. 107.

    Council Doc. SN 3962/6/01.

  108. 108.

    OJ L 105 of 13 April 2006, p. 54. The approach to consider the Directive as a matter of market regulation of the first pillar was recently backed by the European Court of Justice (judgment of 10 February 2009, Case C-301/06, Ireland v. Parliament and Council).

  109. 109.

    Instructive: Recitals 9, 13, 25 of Directive 2006/24/EC.

  110. 110.

    Data that identifies the caller and the means of communication, e.g. subscriber details, billing data, email logs, personal details of customers, and records showing the location where mobile phone calls were made.

  111. 111.

    Art. 5 of the Directive 2006/24/EC. For example, in the case of mobile phones, this includes: (1) calling phone number and numbers dialled, (2) name and address of the subscriber or registered user, (3) date and time of the start and end of the communication, (4) telephone service used, (5) data identifying the user’s communication equipment, such as IMSI and IMEI, and (6) data identifying the geographic location (Cell IDs).

  112. 112.

    Art. 6.

  113. 113.

    http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/216/55/lang,de/#letter (last visited July 2009)

  114. 114.

    In contrast to the Commission proposal, the final Directive does not foresee a provision for the compensation of incurred costs.

  115. 115.

    For critical analyses, see Büllingen et al. (2004); Breyer (2007), p. 214; Zöller (2007), p. 392; Alvaro (2005), p. 47.

  116. 116.

    Instructive: Addendum to Cover Note, Council Doc. 8958/04 ADD 1 of 20 December 2004.

  117. 117.

    Title IV TEC.

  118. 118.

    Cf. European Council, Laeken Summit, Conclusion 42, Council Doc. SN/300/1/01.

  119. 119.

    Den Boer (2003b), p. 11.

  120. 120.

    Vennemann (2003a), p. 264.

  121. 121.

    Conclusion adopted by the Council (Justice and Home Affairs), Brussels 20 September 2001, Council Doc. SN 3926/6/01.

  122. 122.

    OJ L 385 of 29 December 2004, p. 1.

  123. 123.

    Cf. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5548432. The European Parliament mainly opposed an initial Commission proposal to exempt children under the age of 6 years (COM(2007) 619). For a critical analysis of the proposal in view of data protection, see Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor OJ C 200 of 6 August 2008, 1.

  124. 124.

    Cf. 4.4.3.3.

  125. 125.

    Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006, OJ L 105 of 13 April 2006, p. 1.

  126. 126.

    COM(2008) 68.

  127. 127.

    COM(2008) 69.

  128. 128.

    OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 1. The Regulation has been amended several times by implementing legislation.

  129. 129.

    OJ L 129 of 29 April 2004, p. 6.

  130. 130.

    OJ L 310 of 25 November 2005, p. 28.

  131. 131.

    PNR is a record in the database of a Computer Reservation System (CRS) that contains the travel record for a passenger, or a group of passengers travelling together. The concept of a PNR was first introduced by airlines that needed to exchange reservation information in case passengers required flights of multiple airlines to reach their destination (“interlining”).

  132. 132.

    COM(2007) 654.

  133. 133.

    Cf. Wahl (2007a), pp. 9–11; Wahl (2006c), pp. 48–49; Wahl (2006a), pp. 3–4.

  134. 134.

    For further details on the proposal, controversial reactions, and the state of play of negotiations, see Wahl (2007d), pp. 101–104. In early 2008, the Council redrafted the proposal, see Wahl and Staats (2008a), pp. 29–30.

  135. 135.

    OJ L 162 of 20 June 2002, p. 1.

  136. 136.

    Zimmermann (2006), p. 132.

  137. 137.

    Therefore, the Europol Convention had to be adapted by a Protocol of 2002 (OJ L 162 of 20 June 2002). The ratification of the protocol lasted rather long and entered into force on 29 March 2007. The legal basis for Eurojust derives from the Eurojust Decision of 2002 (see also below, Sect. 4.4.4).

  138. 138.

    Art. 1 (12) of the FD; see also recital 9.

  139. 139.

    Zimmermann, ibid.

  140. 140.

    And the need to implement the 2000 EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance. Therefore, the FD contains identical wording to Art. 13 of the 2000 EU MLA Convention. After the Convention entered into force in August 2005, the FD lapsed. For the trajectory of the FD and the consequences of the dual legal basis (framework decision vs. convention), see Rijken (2006), p. 99; Plachta (2005), p. 284.

  141. 141.

    OJ L 253 of 29 September 2005, p. 22.

  142. 142.

    Recital 4.

  143. 143.

    The 2005 Decision repeals the earlier Decision 2003/48/JHA, which was limited to blacklisted persons and convictions.

  144. 144.

    COM(2004) 429.

  145. 145.

    Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006, OJ L 386 of 29.12.2006, p. 89.

  146. 146.

    Cf. Art. 1 (1) of the FD.

  147. 147.

    Art. 1 sets forth further limits for the provision of information, e.g. law enforcement authorities are not obliged to obtain information by means of coercive measures (but may provide information or intelligence previously obtained by means of coercive measures). Likewise, there is no obligation to communicate information that is likely to be used as evidence before a judicial authority, although the agency supplying the information may expressly consent to this.

  148. 148.

    Council Decision 2008/615/JHA, OJ L 210 of 6 August 2008, p. 1.

  149. 149.

    Another category foreseen is the automated searching of vehicle registration data. The provisions follow a gradual approach, which means that they provide specific rules for each type of information, taking into account the specific nature of these data types.

  150. 150.

    The SIS is regulated in Art 92–119 CISA, which includes data protection rules. The SIS consists of a national section for each of the Contracting Parties and a central technical support function. Users search the central file in Strasburg, which itself is fed by the national files. The SIS is the largest European centralised database and is the most important tool for cross border police work in practice. Since 1995, more than 15 million records have been created in the SIS and there are approximately 125,000 access terminals within the participating states.

  151. 151.

    Art. 94 ff. CISA. The categories are: persons wanted for extradition; persons to be refused entry; missing persons or those in need of protection; witnesses or those subject to a criminal judgement or summonses to appear; persons to be kept “under surveillance” or subject to specific checks; and a defined range of objects.

  152. 152.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 871/2004, OJ L 162 of 30 April 2004, p. 29 and Council Decision 2005/211/JHA, OJ L 68 of 15 March 2005, p. 44.

  153. 153.

    COM(2001) 720. Although the legal bases for the SIS II were established (Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007, OJ L 205 of 7 August 2007 and Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006, OJ L 381 of 28 December 2006), the operation of the SIS II is still awaiting. After several delays, the Commission plans to get the SIS II operable in 2009. Europol and Eurojust are granted similar access rights as SIS I.

  154. 154.

    Council Decision 2004/512/EC, OJ L 213 of 15 June 2004, p. 5; Regulation (EC) No 767/2008, OJ L 218 of 13 August 2008, p. 60.

  155. 155.

    Recitals 1–3 of Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, OJ L 218 of 13 August 2008, p. 129.

  156. 156.

    As the term “designated authorities” implies, the Member States are largely free to decide which of their national authorities should have access to the VIS. The term is rather broadly defined: “designated authorities” mean authorities that are responsible for the prevention, detection, or investigation of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offences (Art. 2 (1 e) Council Decision 2008/633/JHA).

  157. 157.

    Opinion of the EDPS, OJ C 97 of 25 April 2006, p. 6; Opinion of the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol (Opinion 06/22). For the conception of purpose limitation and general trends, see Wahl 2006e, 130 ff.

  158. 158.

    Conclusions and Plan of Action of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting on 21 September 2001, Council Doc. SN 140/01.

  159. 159.

    OJ C 316 of 27 November 1995, p. 2. A consolidated version of the Europol Convention after the entry into force of three amending protocols of 2007 is available at: http://www.europol.europa.eu/legal/Europol_Convention_Consolidated_version.pdf (last visited July 2009).

  160. 160.

    As to the rationale of Europol, see Bunyan (1995).

  161. 161.

    Art. 2 of the Europol Convention and relevant Annex to Art. 2 para. 2. Since 2002, all crimes in the annex are covered. Europol supports the law enforcement activities of the Member States mainly against illicit drug trafficking; illicit immigration networks; forgery of money (counterfeiting of the euro) and other means of payment; trade in human beings (including child pornography); trafficking in nuclear and radioactive substances; motor vehicle crime; and money laundering (except for predicate offences). In addition, other main priorities for Europol include crimes against persons, financial crime, and cybercrime. Europol’s competence also covers related criminal offences.

  162. 162.

    Council Decision of 3 December 1998, OJ C 26 of 30 January 1999, p. 22. That Europol was initially not conferred a counter-terrorism mandate resulted from a dispute between Member States, mainly between Spain, which pleaded for a counter-terrorist mandate of Europol, and the UK, which objected. A compromise was then settled in Art. 2 (2) of the Europol Convention that the Council shall decide by unanimous vote to extend Europol’s remit to these crimes.

  163. 163.

    Cf. Europol Annual Reports 2001 and 2007, p. 23.

  164. 164.

    Deflem (2006), p. 344; Dittrich (2005), p. 31. According to the Europol Annual Report 2003, Europol opened another work file dealing with indigenous terrorism.

  165. 165.

    According to Statwatch, 3.16 Mio. euros were added in 2002, which corresponds to an increase of approximately 7% in comparison with the original budget for Europol.

  166. 166.

    Europol Annual Report 2001.

  167. 167.

    Europol Annual Report 2007, p. 24.

  168. 168.

    The new TE-SATs are published at the Europol homepage: www.europol.europa.eu.

  169. 169.

    Not contained in the TE-SAT is information that is classified, falls under data protection law, or information that could jeopardise ongoing investigations.

  170. 170.

    Council Doc 8196/2/06 of 18 May 2006.

  171. 171.

    In this context, the TE-SAT 2007 emphasises that the report does “neither attempt to analyse the root causes of terrorism nor to assess the threat posed by terrorism. Furthermore, the TE-SAT does not assess the impact or effectiveness of counter-terrorism policies and law enforcement measures taken, despite the fact that they form an important part of the phenomenon”.

  172. 172.

    See also Council Conclusions on cooperation to combat terrorist use of the Internet (“Check the Web”), Council Doc. 8457/2/07 of 16 May 2007.

  173. 173.

    Art. 2 (3, 4) of the Council Decision 2005/671/JHA.

  174. 174.

    Cf. COM(2005) 695. Withdrawn in 2007 (OJ C 66 of 22 March 2007, p. 6).

  175. 175.

    Den Boer (2003b), p. 12.

  176. 176.

    Council Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust, OJ L 63 of 6 March 2002, p. 1.

  177. 177.

    Conclusion No. 46.

  178. 178.

    Cf. von Langsdorff (2003), p. 472; Wahl (2001), p. 23.

  179. 179.

    Cf. among others Messelken (2003).

  180. 180.

    Zimmermann (2006), p. 132.

  181. 181.

    Art. 4 Eurojust-Decision. For types of offences other than those referred to, Eurojust may in addition assist in investigations and prosecution at the request of competent national authorities.

  182. 182.

    After the entry into force of the European Arrest Warrant, Eurojust can be considered as the “Union’s judicial lever relative to the EAW” (Zimmermann (2006), p. 132).

  183. 183.

    Bures (2006), p. 64.

  184. 184.

    Details relating to the cooperation between Eurojust and Europol are stipulated in an agreement of 9 June 2004 (cf. http://www.europol.europa.eu/legal/agreements/Agreements/17374.pdf (last visited July 2009)). In the near future, the relationship between Eurojust and Europol will be based on a revised agreement which was adopted on 5 June 2009 by the JHA Council (cf. Council doc. 10019/09 of 15 May 2009).

  185. 185.

    Council Doc. SN 3926/6/01, European Council, Declaration on Combating Terrorism of 25 March 2004, point 5b); Council Doc. 1116/05, p. 7.

  186. 186.

    Art. 3 (1) Council Decision 2003/48/JHA.

  187. 187.

    Art. 2 (3, 5) of Council Decision 2005/671/JHA.

  188. 188.

    Eurojust Annual Report 2004, p. 24, Annual Report 2005, p. 34; Annual Report 2006, p. 31f.

  189. 189.

    Eurojust Annual Report 2006, p. 31f.

  190. 190.

    See Eurojust Annual Reports 2001–2008, available at: http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm (last visited July 2009 The reports also contain casework studies in which Eurojust was involved in terrorist investigations.

  191. 191.

    Council Decision 2009/426/JHA 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 of 4 June 2009, p. 14.

  192. 192.

    COM(2002) 233 and COM (2001) 672.

  193. 193.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004, OJ L 349 of 25 November 2004, p. 1.

  194. 194.

    Vaughan-Williams (2008), p. 66; Jahn (2006), p. 207.

  195. 195.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004, OJ L 349 of 25 November 2004, p. 1.

  196. 196.

    Points 2.5.8 and 3.2.3 of the revised EU Action Plan on combating terrorism, Council doc. 7233/1/07 of 29 March 2007.

  197. 197.

    Art 13 of Council Regulation 2007/2004 states that the Frontex Agency shall work closely with Europol in the framework of working arrangements.

  198. 198.

    Cf. also Holzberger (2006), p. 56.

  199. 199.

    Recommendation 44 of the Tampere Conclusions, footnote 23.

  200. 200.

    Cf. Council documents of the UK delegation, 5858/00 of 2 February 2000 on the one hand, and of the Belgian Delegation, 8120/00 of 3 May 2000, on the other hand.

  201. 201.

    For the development of the PCTF, see Bunyan (2006).

  202. 202.

    Council Doc 14841/01 of 11 December 2001; Monar (2004), p. 153; Den Boer (2003b), p. 14.

  203. 203.

    European Council, Declaration on Combating Terrorism of 25 March 2004, points 5, 8.

  204. 204.

    Council Doc. 14938/04.

  205. 205.

    Council Doc. 7233/1/07, points 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

  206. 206.

    Bunyan (2006).

  207. 207.

    Den Boer et al. (2008), p. 114; Bunyan (2006).

  208. 208.

    Javier Solana has a “double hat”. He holds office of both Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Mr. Solana assists the Council in foreign policy matters, through contributing to the formulation, preparation, and implementation of European policy decisions. He acts on behalf of the Council in conducting political dialogue with third parties.

  209. 209.

    Instructive for the development of the SitCen, see the evidence given by W. Shapcott, Director of the Joint Situation Center, before the UK House of Lords, Shapcott (2005), p. 53.

  210. 210.

    The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, OJ C 53 of 3 March 2005, 2.2.

  211. 211.

    Shapcott (2005), who mentioned that SitCen “had existed as a sort of empty shell” until 11 September 2001 but that soon after the sharing of intelligence and assessments on external relations started.

  212. 212.

    Cf. Written answer of Charles Clarke, UK Home Secretary, to the Parliamentarian John Hayes, 27 June 2005, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id = 2005-06-27a.503.h. (last visited July 2009).

  213. 213.

    212 Shapcott, ibid.

  214. 214.

    Müller-Wille (2008). An overview of the further structures within the Council dealing with terrorism is provided for instance by Dittrich (2006), p. 26 and Bendiek (2006), p. 21.

  215. 215.

    Müller-Wille (2008), p. 60.

  216. 216.

    Monar (2005a), p. 10.

  217. 217.

    Keohane (2005); Müller-Wille (2008), p. 61.

  218. 218.

    Müller-Wille (2008).

  219. 219.

    Bendiek (2006), p. 21.

  220. 220.

    Müller-Wille (2008), p. 61.

  221. 221.

    Den Boer et al. (2008), p. 115.

  222. 222.

    Declaration on Combating Terrorism of 25 March 2004.

  223. 223.

    Bendiek (2006), p. 19; Spence (2007a) p. 17f.; Monar (2005a), p. 10.

  224. 224.

    Dittrich (2005), p. 30; Bossong (2008b), p. 7.

  225. 225.

    Cf. Council Doc. SN 140/01 and Council Conclusions on the EU external action against terrorism of 22 July 2002, Council Doc. 10945/02 (Presse 210).

  226. 226.

    For this distinction, see Monar (2008), p. 219.

  227. 227.

    For transatlantic cooperation measures, see Cameron (2007), p. 135; Monar (2004), p. 157.

  228. 228.

    http://www.europol.europa.eu/legal/agreements/Agreements/16268–2.pdf (last visited July 2009). The agreement also provides for the assignment of liaison officers and the exchange of expertise.

  229. 229.

    http://www.europol.europa.eu/legal/agreements/Agreements/16268-1.pdf (last visited July 2009).

  230. 230.

    Peers (2002); Monar (2004), p. 158.

  231. 231.

    OJ L 181 of 19 July 2003 p. 27 and 34, respectively.

  232. 232.

    Cf. Report of MEP Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar, A5-0172/2003 of 22 May 2003; Holzberger (2003), p. 91.

  233. 233.

    For details, see Wahl (2007a), p. 9; Wahl (2006c), p. 48, and Wahl (2006a), p. 3f. with Internet link references to the agreements.

  234. 234.

    For the main concerns in more detail, see Wahl (2007a), p. 10 with further reference.

  235. 235.

    Wahl, ibid, with further reference.

  236. 236.

    Den Boer and Monar (2002), pp. 15 ff.

  237. 237.

    Bendiek (2006), p. 24.

  238. 238.

    Spence (2007a), p. 23; see also Keohane (2005), p. 34, who points out the vagueness of the clauses make them meaningless.

  239. 239.

    Wilkinson (2005), p. 37.

  240. 240.

    Bures (2006).

  241. 241.

    In this sense Gijs de Vries in: Le Monde, 18 May 2004.

  242. 242.

    Cf. COM(2004) 409 and Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2004) 688 as well as COM(2007) 681 plus Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2007) 1463.

  243. 243.

    Cf. reports of the Commission on the EAW: COM(2005) 63; COM(2006) 8; COM(2007) 407.

  244. 244.

    For the problems in connection with the operational use of JITs, see Rijken (2006), p. 99.

  245. 245.

    COM(2004) 858 of 7 January 2005.

  246. 246.

    Council doc. 15912/08 ADD 1 of 19 November 2008.

  247. 247.

    Eurojust Annual Report 2005; Council Doc. 7318/06, p. 13; COM(2004) 457.

  248. 248.

    Council doc. 7868/06 of 29 March 2006; House of Lords Report (2005), mn. 63.

  249. 249.

    Müller-Wille (2008), p. 69; Dittrich (2005), p. 29.

  250. 250.

    Council doc. 7868/06, p. 4; Dittrich (2005), p. 33; Müller-Wille (2008), p. 57.

  251. 251.

    Knelangen (2008), p. 107; Reinisch (2004).

  252. 252.

    For the problem of a lack of empirical research concerning police cooperation and terrorism, Fijnaut (2004), pp. 272f. The view on police cooperation can certainly generally be transferred to the other EU counter-terrorism measures. See also Knelangen (2008), p. 115. Keohane (2005), p. 38, points out that the EU’s security policies (internal and external) are young and relatively untested, and that citizens must still be convinced about the effectiveness of the EU’s counter-terrorism policies.

  253. 253.

    Bossong (2008b), p. 15.

  254. 254.

    Den Boer (2003b), p. 15. See also the Report of the House of Lords (2005), p. 27, which emphasises: “In an area where clarity of roles and responsibilities is vital, we found the structures within the EU for combating terrorism complex and confusing. Although some of our witnesses promised us a map of all the interlocking and overlapping groups, no one was able to produce one”.

  255. 255.

    Spence (2007a), p. 17f; Keohane (2005), p. 19.

  256. 256.

    The human rights aspect cannot be deepened here, this is why reference must be made to special legal literature.

  257. 257.

    Cf. Den Boer (2003b), p. 22.

References

  • Al-Jumaili, D. (2008). Stationen im Kampf gegen die Terrorismusfinanzierung – New York – Brüssel - Berlin, Neue Juristische Online Zeitschrift (NJOZ) 8, 188–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvaro, A. (2005). Positionspapier zur Einführung einer Vorratsspeicherung von Daten, Recht der Datenverarbeitung (RDV) 47–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M., Den Boer, M., Cullen, P., Gilmore, W., Raab, C., Walker, N. (1995). Policing the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, T. (2008). The Policy Tools of Securitization: Information Exchange, EU Foreign and Interior Policies, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, T., Carrera, S. (2005). The EU’s Fight Against International Terrorism – Security Problems, Insecure Solutions, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) Policy Brief No. 80, July 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartelt S., Zeitler H. E. (2003). “Intelligente Sanktionen” zur Terrorismusbekämpfung in der EU, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 14, 712–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M., Algieri, F. (2006). Viel erreicht, aber noch mehr zu tun: Die Vielschichtigkeit europäischer Maßnahmen zur Bekäömpfung des Terrorismus. In E. Müller, P. Schneider (eds.), Die Europäische Union im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus: Sicherheit vs. Freiheit? Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendiek, A. (2006). Die Terrorismusbekämpfung der EU, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik: SWP-Studie 21, August 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke, H.-J. (2007). EUV Art. 2. In C. Calliess, M. Ruffert (eds.), Kommentar zum EU-Vertag und EG-Vertrag. 3rd ed. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossong, R. (2008a). The Action Plan on Combation Terrorism: A Flawed Instrument of EU Security Governance, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossong, R. (2008b). The EU’s Mature Counterterrorism Policy – A Critical Historical and Functional Assessment, LSE Challenge Working Paper, June 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer P. (2007). Rechtsprobleme der Richtlinie 2006/24/EG zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung und ihrer Umsetzung in Deutschland, Strafverteidiger (StV) 214–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruggemann, W. (2004). Countering the Threat of Terrorism in the EU in a Broader Organised Crime Perspective. In C. Fijnaut, J. Wouters, F. Naert (eds.), Legal Instruments in the Fight Against International Terrorism. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büllingen, F., Gillet, A., Gries, C-I., Hillebrand, A., Stamm P. (2004). Stand und Perspektiven der Vorratsdatenspeicherung im internationalen Vergleich. (Bad Honnef: WIK). www.bitkom.org/files/documents/Studie_VDS_final_lang.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan T. (1995). The Europol Convention, London: A Statewatch publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan, T. (2002). The “War on Freedom and Democracy”, Statewatch analysis, September 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan, T. (2005). While Europe Sleeps…, European Civil Liberties Network, Essays for civil liberties and democracy in Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan, T. (2006). The EU’s Police Chief Task Force (PCTF) and Police Chiefs Committee, Statewatch analysis March 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bures, O. (2006). EU Counterterrorism Policy: A Paper Tiger? Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence 18, 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bures O. (2008). Europol’s Fledging Counterterrorism Role, Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence 20, 498–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burghardt, G., Tebbe, G., Marquardt S. (2003/2004). Art. 11 EUV. In H. von der Groeben, J. Schwarze (eds.), Kommentar zum EU-/EG-Vertrag. 6th ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron F. (2007). Transatlantic Relations and Terrorism. In D. Spence (ed.), The European Union and Terrorism. London: Harper Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coninsx, M. (2004). Eurojust and EU Judicial Cooperation in the Fight against Terrorism. In C. Fijnaut, J. Wouters, F. Naert (eds.), Legal Instruments in the Fight Against International Terrorism. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannecker G. (2007). Die Entwicklung des Wirtschaftsstrafrechts unter dem Einfluss des Europarechts. In H-B. Wabnitz, T. Janovsky (eds.), Handbuch des Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrechts. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deflem, M. (2006). Europol and the Policing of International Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism in a Global Perspective, Justice Quarterly 23, 336–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Kerchove, G. (2004). L’action de l’Union Européenne en matère de lutte contre le terrorisme, Revue du Marché commun et de l’Union européenne, n° 480, 421–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delpech, T. (2002). International Terrorism and Europe, Chaillot Paper n° 56, December 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demaret, P. (1994). The Treaty Framework. In D. O’Keefe, P. Twomey (eds.), Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty. New York: Chancery Law Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M. (2003a). The EU Counter-Terrorism Wave: Window of Opportunity or Profound Policy Transformation? In M. van Leeuwen (ed.), Confronting Terrorism: European Experiences, Threat Perceptions and Policies. Den Haag: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M. (2003b). 9/11 and the Europeanisation of Anti-Terrorism Policy: A Critical Assessment, Notre Europe Policy Papers No 6, September 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M., Monar J. (2002). Keynote Article: 11 September and the Challenge of Global Terrorism to the EU as a Security Actor, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 40, 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M., Hillebrand C., Nölke A. (2008). Legitimacy under Pressure: The European Web of Counter-Terrorism Networks, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich, M. (2005). Facing the Global Terrorist Threat. A European response, European Policy Centre (EPC) Working Paper N° 14, January 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich, M. (2007). Radicalisation and Recruitment: The EU Response. In D. Spence (ed.), The European Union and Terrorism. London: John Harper Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörr, O. (1995a). Zur Rechtsnatur der Europäischen Union, Europarecht (EuR), 334–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörr O. (1995b). Noch einmal: Die Europäische Union und die Europäischen Gemeinschaften, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3162–3165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas-Scott, S. (2004). The Rule of Law in the European Union – Putting the Security into the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, European Law Review (ELRev) 29, 219–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake H. (2000). Jacques Delors: A Political Biography. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D. (2002). The Attacks of 11 September: EU-US Cooperation Against Terrorism in the Field of Justice and Home Affairs, European Foreign Affairs Review 7, 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumitriu, E. (2004). The EU’s Definition of Terrorism: The Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism, German Law Review 5, 585–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, M. R. (1994). Common Foreign and Security Policy. In D. O’Keefe, P. M. Twomey (eds.), Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty. New York: Chancery Law Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G., Meyer, C. O. (2008). Introduction: Charting a Contested Transformation, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekengren, M. (2007). Terrorism and the EU: The Internal-External Dimension of Security. In D. Spence (ed.), The European Union and Terrorism. London: Harper Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Fijnaut, C. (2004). Police Co-operation and the Area of Freedom Security and Justice. In N. Walker (ed.), Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frattini, F. (2006). Internal and External Dimension of Fighting Against Terrorism. In E. Müller, P. Schneider (eds.), Die Europäische Union im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus: Sicherheit vs. Freiheit? Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgopoulos, T. (2005). What kind of Treaty Making Power for the EU? European Law Review (ELRev) 30, 190–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gercke, M. (2005). Der Rahmenbeschluss über Angriffe auf Informationssysteme, Computer und Recht (CR) 468–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeßner, G. J., Lorenz, A. (2005). Europa und die Politik der inneren Sicherheit. In G.-J. Glaeßner, A. Lorenz (eds.), Europäisierung der inneren Sicherheit. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gueydan, C. (1997). Cooperation Between Member States of the European Community in the Fight Against Terrorism. In R. Higgins, M. Flory (eds.), Terrorism and International Law. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, E. (2008). The Uses and Abuses of Counter-Terrorism Policies in Europe: The Case of the ‘Terror Lists’, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gusy, C. (2005). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer europäischen Antiterrorpolitik, Goltdammers Archiv für Strafrecht (GA) 152, 215–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecker B. (2007). Europäisches Strafrecht, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog F., Hoch, T. (2007). Politisch exponierte Personen unter Beobachtung, Wertpapiermitteilungen Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht (WM) 1997–2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetzer W. (2008). Geldwäsche und Terrorismusfinanzierung, Kriminalistik 468–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (2004). Renationalizing or Regrouping? EU Foreign Policy Since 11 September 2001, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 42, 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzberger, M. (2003). Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfeübereinkommen mit den USA, Bürgerrechte & Polizei/ CILIP 75, 91–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzberger, M. (2006). Europols kleine Schwester, Die Europäische Grenzschutzagentur “Frontex”, Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP 84, 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörmann, S. (2007). Die Befugnis der EG zur Umsetzung von Resolutionen des UN-Sicherheitsrates zur Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus, Europarecht (EuR) 120–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horspool, M., Humphreys M. (2007). European Union Law. 5th ed. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2005). European Union Committee, 5th Report of Session 2004–05, After Madrid: the EU’s response to terrorism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn S. (2006). Die Europäische Grenzschutzagentur, Die Polizei 207–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimeno-Bulnes, M. (2004). After September 11th: The Fight Against Terrorism in National and European Law, European Law Journal 10, 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joffé, G. (2008). The European Union, Democracy and Counter-Terrorism in the Maghreb, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jour-Schröder, A., Wasmeier, M. (2003/2004). Vorbem zu den Artikeln 29 bis 42 EUV. In H. von der Groeben, J. Schwarze (eds.), Kommentar zum EU-/EG-Vertrag. 6th ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiafa-Gbandi, M. (2006). Recent Developments in Criminal Law in the EU and Rule-of-Law Deficits. In B. Schünemann (ed.), A Programme for European Criminal Justice. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karayigit, M. T. (2006). The Yusuf and Kadi Judgments: The Scope of the EC Competences in Respect of Restrictive Measures, Legal Issues of Economic Integration 33, 379–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, D. (2005). The EU and Counter-Terrorism, Centre for European Reform (CER) Working Paper, May 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, D. (2008). The Absent Friend: EU Foreign Policy and Counter-Terrorism, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilchling, M. (2001). Eine Zauberformel, die den Terrorismus bannt? MaxPlanckForschung 4, 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilchling M. (2004). Financial Counterterrorism Initiatives in Europe. In C. Fijnaut, J. Wouters, F. Naert (eds.), Legal Instruments in the Fight Against International Terrorism. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilchling, M. (2006). Rechtliche Instrumente zur Bekämpfung der Terrorismusfinanzierung im internationalen Vergleich. In Gehl, G. (ed.), Terrorismus – Krieg des 21. Jahrhunderts? Weimar: Bertuch-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleine, M. (2004). Die Reaktion der EU auf den 11. September, Forschungsberichte Internationale Politik 31. Münster et al.: LIT Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Knelangen, W. (2006) Die innen- und justizpolitische Zusammenarbeit der EU und die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus. In E. Müller, P. Schneider (eds.), Die Europäische Union im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus: Sicherheit vs. Freiheit? Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knelangen, W. (2008). Die Europäische Union: eine “starke Macht” im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus? In Peter Nitschke (ed.), Globaler Terrorismus und Europa. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzur, M. (2006). Eine Bewährungsprobe für die Europäische Grundrechtegemeinschaft: Zur Entscheidung des EuG in der Rs. Yusuf u.a. gegen Rat, EuGRZ 2005, 592 ff, Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift (EuGRZ) 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt S. (2003/2004). Vorbem. Art. 11 EUV. In H. von der Groeben, J. Schwarze (eds.), Kommentar zum EU-/EG-Vertrag. 6th ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégie, A. (2004). Le 11 septembre: élément accélérateur de la cooperation judiciaire eurpéenne? Les cahiers de sécurité intériere 55, 91–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messelken, D. (2003). Europas Antiterrorismus-Politik: Entstehung, Entwicklung, Perspektiven, Berliner Transformationszentrum für Transnationale Sicherheit (BITS) Briefing Note 03.3 Dezember 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, F. (2007). Lost in Complexity – Gedanken zum Rechtsschutz gegen Smart Sanctions in der EU, Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien (ZEuS) 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, F. (2008). EU Terrorism Lists in the Eye of the Rule of Law, eucrim 1–2, 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V., Gilmore, B. (2007). The EU Legislative Framework Against Money Laundering and Terrorist Finance: A Critical Analysis in the Light of Evolving Global Standards, International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 56, 119–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moiny, Y. (2005). Protection of Personal Data and Citizens’ Rights of Privacy in the Fight against the Financing of Terrorism, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) Policy Brief No. 67, March 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2004). Die EU und die Herausforderung des internationalen Terrorismus. In W. Weidenfeld (ed.), Herausforderung Terrorismus. Die Zukunft der Sicherheit. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2005a). “Braucht die Europäische Union ein ‘European Bureau of Investigation’ (EBI) und eine ?European Intelligence Agency?” Working Paper (Gutachten) Bertelsmann Stiftung. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2005b). Die politische Konzeption des Raumes der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts: Vom Amsterdamer Vertrag zum Verfassungsentwurf des Konvents. In Peter-Christian Müller-Graff (ed.), Der Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar, J. (2007). Common Threat and Common Response? The European Unions’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Problems, Government and Opposition 42, 292–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muguruza, C. C. (2001). The European Union’s Reaction to the Terrorist Attacks on the United States, Humanitäres Völkerrecht 14, 234–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wille, B. (2004). For our eyes only? Shaping an Intelligence Community within the EU, European Institute for Security Studies, Occasional Papers n° 50, January 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wille, B. (2008). The Effect of International Terrorism on EU Intelligence Co-operation, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, K. (2002). Ein Jahr danach – Gedanken zum 11. September 2001, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 2665–2736.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, M. (2008). A Critical Analysis of the EU Legal Provisions on Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence 20, 26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, T. (2005). Europarecht. 3rd ed. München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor-Nunoz, N. (2008), eucrim 1–2, 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechstein, M., Koenig C. (2000). Die Europäische Union. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2002). The Exchange of Personal Data Between Europol and the USA, Statewatch analysis, 15 November 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2003). EU Responses to Terrorism, International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 52, 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2006). EU Justice and Home Affairs Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Plachta, M. (2003). European Arrest Warrant: Revolution in Extradition? European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 11, 178–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plachta, M. (2005). Joint Investigation Teams, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 13, 284–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch, A. (2004). The Action of the European Union to Combat International Terrorism. In A. Bianchi (ed.), Enforcing International Law Norms Against Terrorism. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhinhard, M., Boin, A., Ekengren, M. (2007). Managing Terrorism: Institutional Capacities and Counter-Terrorism Policy in the EU. In D. Spence (ed.), The European Union and Terrorism. London: Harper Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijken, C. (2006). Joint Investigation Teams: Principles, Practice, and Problems, Utrecht Law Review 2, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saurer, J. (2005). Die Ausweitung sicherheitsrechtlicher Regelungsansprüche im Kontext der Terrorismusbekämpfung, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 275–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider L. (2007). Commission Report on FIU Cooperation, eucrim 3–4, 97–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schünemann B. (2003). Europäischer Haftbefehl und EU Verfassungsentwurf auf schiefer Ebene, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 185–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schünemann B. (2004). Fortschritte und Fehltritte in der Strafrechtspflege der EU, Goltdammers Archiv für Strafrecht (GA) 151,193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, M., Hummer, W. (1996). Europarecht. 5th ed. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, M., Hummer, W., Obwexer W. (2007). Europarecht. Wien: Manz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapcott, W. (2005). “After Madrid: The EU’s Response to Terrorism”, European Union Committee, 5th Report of Session 2004–05, Report with Evidence, March 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2006). International Cooperation against Terrorism use of the Internet, Revue International de Droit Pénal 77, 395–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2008), The Forces behind the Harmonisation of Criminal Law. In Delmas-Marty, M., Pieth, M., Sieber, U. (eds.), Les chemins de l’harmonisation pénale/Harmonising Criminal Law. Paris: Société de lègislation comparée.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2009), Legitimation und Grenzen von Gefährdungsdelikten im Vorfeld von terroristischer Gewalt. Eine Analyse der Vorfeldtatbestaende im “Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten”. Neue Zeitschrift fuer Strafrecht (NStZ), 353-364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, U. (2005). Das Schnüffeln geht weiter, Anwaltsblatt (AnwBl) 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, D. (2007a). International terrorism – in the Quest for a Coherent EU Response. In D. Spence (ed.), The European Union and Terrorism. London: Harper Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, D. (2007b). The Continuing Quest for Coherence: Sovereignty Human Rights and EU Coordination. In D. Spence (ed.), The European Union and Terrorism. London: Harper Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugman, K., Jaeger, M. (2008). The Influence of Terrorist Events on the Development of EU Criminal Law. In Steven W. Becker, Davor Derenčinović (eds.), International Terrorism: The Future Unchained? Zagreb: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, T., Meiser, C. (2001). Die Europäische Union und der Terrorismus, Die Friedens-Warte 76, 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, R. (2008), Europarecht. Heidelberg: C.F. Mueller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symeonidou-Kastanidou, E. (2004). Defining Terrorism, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 12, 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szyszkowitz, T. (2005). The European Union. In K. von Hippel (ed.), Europe Confronts Terrorism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tempest, M. (2004). EU to Appoint Anti-terror tsar’, The Guardian, 19 March 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C., Hammelmann, S. (2006). Gezielte Finanzsanktionen der Vereinten Nationen im Spannungsvehältnis zum Gemeinschaftsrecht und zu den Menschenrechten, JuS 299–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan-Williams N. (2008). Borderwork beyond Inside/Outside? Frontex, the Citizen-Detective and the War on Terror, Space and Polity 12, 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennemann, N. (2003a). Country Report on the European Union. In C. Walter, S. Vöneky, V. Röben, F. Schorkopf (eds.), Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennemann, N. (2003b). The European Arrest Warrant and Its Human Rights Implications, Zeitschrift für ausländsiches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 63, 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F. (2004). Bull’s-eye? Two Remarkable EU Framework Decisions in the Fight against Terrorism. In C. Fijnaut, J. Wouters, F. Naert (eds.), Legal Instruments in the Fight Against International Terrorism. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernimmen, G., Surano, L. (2008). Analysis of the Future of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the European Union, European Criminal Law Academic Network (ECLAN) Study – Final Report, November 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt, S. (2006). Der EU-Rahmenbeschluss zur Terrorismusbekämpfung – ein wirksames Mittel der Terrorabwehr? In E. Müller, P. Schneider (eds.), Die Europäische Union im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus: Sicherheit vs. Freiheit? Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A., Nettesheim, M. (1996). Die Europäische Union: Ein einheitlicher Verband mit eigener Rechtsordnung, Europarecht (EuR) 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bubnoff, E. (2002). Terrorismusbekämpfung – eine weltweite Herausforderung, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2672–2676.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Langsdorff, H. (2003). Maßnahmen der Europäischen Union zur Vereinfachung und Beschleunigung der Rechthilfe und insoweit vorgesehene Beschuldigten- und Verteidigerrechte, Strafverteidiger (StV) 472–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2001). Eurojust, AGON No. 33, 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2006a). Community Powers in Criminal Matters - The European Court’s Ruling on PNR Data, eucrim 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2006b). Customs Empowered for Cash Controls, eucrim 12

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2006c). PNR Data – New Agreement, eucrim 48–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2006d). Regulation on Transfers of Funds in Force, eucrim 59–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2006e). Datenschutz im Rahmen der polizeilichen Zusammenarbeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des SIS. In A. Epiney, S. Theurkauf (eds.), Datenschutz in Europa und die Schweiz. Zürich: Schulthess.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2007a). EU and USA Conclude Controversial Long-Term PNR Agreement, eucrim 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2007b). New Decision Establishing Europol on Track, eucrim 83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2007c). Initiative on Eurojust, eucrim 84–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2007d). Data Protection, eucrim 101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2008a). Europol’s Transformation into EU Agency Agreed eucrim 13f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T. (2009). The Perception of the Principle of Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Matters in Germany. In Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen, G., Surano, L., Weyembergh, A. (eds.), The future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T., Staats, S. (2008a). EU PNR Scheme - Redraft by the Council, eucrim 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, T., Staats, S. (2008b). Transfer of Prüm Treaty Finalised, eucrim 305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, A. (2008). European Responses to International Terrorism: Diversity Awerness as a New Capability? Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) 46, 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, P. (2005). International Terrorism: The Changing Threat and the EU’s Response, Chaillot Paper n° 84 , October 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J., Naert F. (2004a). Of Arrest Warrants, Terrorist Offences and Extradition Deals: An Appraisal of the EU’s main Criminal Law Measures against Terrorism after “11 September”, Common Market Law Review (CMLRev) 41, 909–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, J., Naert F. (2004b). Police and Judicial Cooperation in the European Union and Counterterrorism: An Overview. In C. Fijnaut, J. Wouters, F. Naert (eds.), Legal Instruments in the Fight Against International Terrorism. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. (2006). The Importance of Europe in the Global Campaign Against Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence 18, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, D. (2006). The European Union and Post-9/11 Counterterrorism: A Reappraisal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 29, 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, F. (2009). Tendenzen der Strafrechtsangleichung in der EU - dargestellt anhand der Bestrebungen zur Bekämpfung von Terrorismus, Rassismus und illegaler Beschäftigung, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (ZIS) 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zöller M. (2007). Vorratsdatenspeicherung zwischen nationaler und europäischer Strafverfolgung, Goltdammers Archiv (GA) 392–414.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Criminal Law Section, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany

    Thomas Wahl

Authors
  1. Thomas Wahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Wahl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Internationales Strafrecht, MPI für Ausländisches und, Günterstalstr. 73, Freiburg, 79100, Germany

    Marianne Wade

  2. Fac. Criminal Justice Sciences, University of Sarajevo, Zmaja od Bosne 8, Sarajevo, 71000, Bosnia-Herzegovina

    Almir Maljevic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wahl, T. (2010). The European Union as an Actor in the Fight Against Terrorism. In: Wade, M., Maljevic, A. (eds) A War on Terror?. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89291-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation