• Buro Jansen & Janssen is een onderzoeksburo dat politie, justitie, inlichtingendiensten, de overheid in Nederland en Europa kritisch volgt. Een grond-rechten kollektief dat al 30 jaar publiceert over uitbreiding van repressieve wetgeving, publiek-private samenwerking, bevoegdheden, overheids-optreden en andere staatsaangelegenheden.
    Buro Jansen & Janssen Postbus 10591, 1001EN Amsterdam, 020-6123202/06-34339533, info@burojansen.nl.
    Steun Buro Jansen & Janssen. Word donateur, NL56 INGB 0000 6039 04 ten name van Stichting Res Publica, Postbus 11556, 1001 GN Amsterdam.
  • Publicaties

  • Europa

  • Politieklachten

  • Ad Hoc meeting on follow-up to the Göteborg events on 4 July

    10525/01 GdK/kve1 DG H EN
    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
    Brussels, 3 July 2001
    10525/01 LIMITE
    COPEN 34
    ENFOPOL 70
    NOTE
    from : General Secretariat
    to : Ad Hoc meeting on follow-up to the Göteborg events on 4 July
    Subject : &
    1. Within the framework of the meeting of the European Judicial Network in Stockholm from 18 to 20 June 2001, the Swedish Presidency convened a meeting of certain specialised prosecutors and members of Pro Eurojust. The meeting was chaired by Mrs Solveig Riberdahl, Deputy Prosecutor General of Sweden, and attended by 25 Prosecutors representing all Member States
    of the Union.


    2. One Prosecutor from Göteborg informed the participants of the close cooperation that had taken place between the Prosecutors and the police in advance of the meeting and of the current situation. 400 persons had been arrested but they had to be released, under Swedish legislation, within 12 hours. That meant that a number of persons that had been arrested on the Thursday were back on the streets again on Friday when the most violent demonstrations took place. 50
    persons were currently in custody by order of the Court. It was expected that some 400 persons
    would have to be identified in the future and that an extensive international judicial cooperation
    was needed. Currently, 10 prosecutors were working on the cases. Since carrying masks in
    demonstrations were permitted in Sweden, this could cause problems for future identifications.
    The groups were well organized, the police had arrested a commando centre  of 12 persons in
    an apartment that was equipped with computer and radio communications.
    10525/01 GdK/kve
    2
    DG H
    EN
    3. An exchange of views took place. The following may be noted:
    ÿÿ One Member State has a 24 hour possibility to keep demonstrators. On two different occasions,
    Member States had used immigration laws to keep violent demonstrators further and/or to expel
    them. This situation could be legally unsatisfactory.
    ÿÿ Close co-operation between police and prosecutors was always necessary. Standard letters
    rogatory had been prepared before EURO 2000 and contact points in the most concerned
    countries had been established to enable them to respond within 24 hours.
    ÿÿ Before EURO 2000, the police had exchanged names on potential hooligans. It was proposed
    that one should compare these lists with the current ones from Göteborg.
    ÿÿ There are also some aspects concerning terrorism  a special cooperation had been set in place
    for competent authorities before EURO 2000.
    ÿÿ One experience from events such as this one is that there are a number of police on the streets to
    keep order, but when they are arrested there is not enough police to investigate and begin to
    gather evidence  the judicial case gets a very bad start and this has repercussions later in the
    criminal process.
    ÿÿ Experience from other cases is that Internet and strong encryption (128 bit) is used by these
    groups. In one case, it was not possible to crack the encryption.
    ÿÿ It was suggested that various EU bodies such as the European Judicial Network or Eurojust
    could, from a prosecutorial point of view, analyse these cases and gather experience. Contacts
    could for instance take place between prosecutors in Genua, Brussels, Netherlands, Germany
    and Göteborg to ensure that experiences are exchanged. Such bodies could in the future assist in
    organising co-ordination and planning meetings between competent judicial authorities.
    ÿÿ Europol could in the future when they have competence carry out an analysis on these events.
    ÿÿ One country is able to issue restriction orders to known hooligans that will have to report to the
    police in their country, and will thus not be able to travel to the event abroad.
    ÿÿ One country can in exceptional circumstances prolong the detention for arrested hooligans.
    ÿÿ Eurojust and the European Judicial Network could in the future assist in developing a strategy
    for these situations.
    10525/01 GdK/kve
    3
    DG H
    EN
    ÿÿ It was thought that criminal organisations are behind these events in most cases as they are so
    well organised.
    ÿÿ Harmonisation on legislation at European level should intervene.
    ÿÿ Several of the prosecutors present were ready to share their experiences and invited their
    colleagues to come to them to study how they had organised the prevention.
    ÿÿ Pictures of known hooligans could be exchanged over the Internet.
    ÿÿ One practical problem concerned lack of interpreters when the hooligans were arrested.
    ÿÿ It was suggested to create a Network within the Network and arrange a special meeting for
    specialised prosecutors on this issue