More effective decision-making in Justice and Home Affairs

At their meeting in Tampere on 22 September, EU ministers responsible for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) discussed how to improve decision-making in JHA matters.

“Issuing declarations and recommendations is a way forward, especially with regard to cooperation in public order and security. Examples of this cooperation include security arrangements made in connection with international football matches and major public events, and when protecting public figures. A transition to qualified majority voting would enable us to make concrete and binding decisions. Furthermore, it would ensure that decisions are implemented at national level, too,” continued Mr Rajamäki.

“A positive example of more effective decision-making and the application of the Community method to cooperation between law enforcement authorities is the Directive on data retention adopted by the Council last December. The codecision procedure made it possible to reach a quick decision on this difficult political issue. Despite the tight schedule, the compromise took account of the main concerns expressed by Member States. This is an excellent example of how decisions can be made by qualified majority voting while aiming for consensus,” Mr Rajamäki pointed out.

“An example of not reaching a decision in a matter of great importance is the initiative concerning the development of the Schengen acquis for the purposes of cross-border police cooperation that led to a dead end in spring. This initiative was also problematic for Finland. The outcome of the decision reflects more generally difficulties relating to unanimous decision-making, the most central of which is that decisions only reach a minimum common denominator,” Minister Rajamäki regretted.

After Finland joined the EU in 1995, the Council’s police cooperation working group devoted a lot of time to discussing the establishment of a common standard on a public authority radio network for the EU Member States. Common standards are necessary for cross-border cooperation. The majority of the Member States supported the Tetra 25 standard; however, as one Member State opposed it, a unanimous decision was not achieved. As a consequence, it was not possible to set a common standard. This clearly hampers practical cross-border cooperation between the authorities,” said Mr Rajamäki.

“As a result of these practical reasons and in order to guarantee security, the EU Member States need to resort to substitutive arrangements, which in practice means measures falling outside the scope of the EU decision-making system. This reduces the EU's credibility and capacity to act. Acting outside the scope of the EU decision-making also goes against the principles of legal protection which have been developed to guarantee citizens' security inside the Union. For example, often not enough attention is paid to viewpoints related to data protection in the initiatives which mainly follow the conditions set by police authorities and aim at maximising efficiency. It is unfortunate that those participating in preparatory work, starting from ministers, have to spend time on this unnecessary work. The fact that practical results are insufficient undermines the EU’s credibility at EU level both among citizens and civil servants. What citizens expect of the EU is added value in security matters, especially in combating organised crime and terrorism,” emphasised Mr Rajamäki.

For further information, please contact Kari Salmi, State Secretary tel. +358 40 733 7085; Ritva Viljanen, Permanent Secretary tel. +358 50 563 5710; Antti Pelttari, Director-General tel. +358 50 357 7194; Kari Rantama, Deputy National Police Commissioner tel. +358 40 503 6936