Action plan to combat organized crime (Adopted by the Council on 28 April 1997)
 Official Journal C 251 , 15/08/1997 p. 0001 - 0016

 Dates:
 OF DOCUMENT:
                     28/04/1997
 OF END OF VALIDITY:
                     99/99/9999
 

 Subject matter: JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
 Directory classification code: 19000000
 EUROVOC descriptor: organized crime ; action programme ; fight against crime ; EU police
 cooperation ; EU judicial cooperation ; Europol
 

 ACTION PLAN TO COMBAT ORGANIZED CRIME (Adopted by the Council on 28 April 1997) (97/C
 251/01)

 PART I
 INTRODUCTION

 Chapter I
 Background

 1. Organized crime is increasingly becoming a threat to society as we know it and want to preserve it.
 Criminal behaviour no longer is the domain of individuals only, but also of organizations that pervade
 the various structures of civil society, and indeed society as a whole. Crime is increasingly organizing
 itself across national borders, also taking advantage of the free movement of goods, capital, services
 and persons. Technological innovations such as Internet and electronic banking turn out to be
 extremely convenient vehicles either for committing crimes or for transferring the resulting profits into
 seemingly licit activities. Fraud and corruption take on massive proportions, defrauding citizens and
 civic institutions alike.

 In comparison, effective means of preventing and repressing these criminal activities are developing
 only at a slow pace, almost always one step behind. If Europe is to develop into an area of freedom,
 security and justice, it needs to organize itself better, and to provide strategic and tactical responses
 to the challenge facing it. This requires a political commitment at the highest level.

 2. The European Council (Dublin 13 and 14 December 1996) underlined its absolute determination to
 fight organized crime and stressed the need for a coherent and coordinated approach by the Union. It
 decided to create a High Level Group to draw up a comprehensive Action Plan containing specific
 recommendations, including realistic timetables for carrying out the work. The Group was requested to
 examine the fight against organized crime in all its aspects on the clear understanding that it would
 refer any issues involving Treaty change to the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) which is
 addressing Treaty changes in this area as a priority. The Group should complete its work by
 March/April 1997 (1). The letter of the Chairman of the High Level Group to the Chairman of the IGC
 containing the results of this examination is set out in an Annex to this report.

 3. The High Level Group has held six meetings in pursuance of this mandate. Its findings have led to
 the drawing up of 15 Political Guidelines and 30 Specific Recommendations, together with a proposed
 timetable and an indication of where the responsibility for implementation of each recommendation
 might be considered to lie. These are set out in Part III of this report in the form of a detailed Action
 Plan.

 4. In submitting this Action Plan to the Heads of State and Government, the High Level Group
 underlines its conviction that the fight against organized crime and terrorism is a never-ending
 endeavour. The fight must be uncompromising but must always use legitimate means and pay full
 respect to the principles of the Rule of Law, democracy and human rights, not losing sight of the fact
 that it is the protection of those values which is the raison raison d'être for fighting organized crime.

 Chapter II
 General approach of the High Level Group

 5. In seeking to respond to the high level of urgency and political importance attached by Heads of
 State and Government to the problem of combating organized crime, as reflected in the Dublin
 European Council conclusions, the Group has based its approach on the following elements:

 (a) full account should be taken of the work already being pursued on this same question nationally,
 within the European Union itself and in a number of international fora. This has been particularly
 relevant since some of the most significant of these international fora, notably the P-8 and the Visby
 Group, involve several European Union Member States. It also means working closely with the
 countries that are candidates for membership of the Union, with the Union's Transatlantic partners,
 with other countries such as Russia and the Ukraine and with the major international players active in
 the fight against organized crime (Interpol, United Nations bodies such as the United Nations
 International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal
 Justice, Council of Europe, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) etc.);

 (b) the Group's recommendations should, however, focus on the particular strengths and objectives of
 the European Union as such, as set out in the Treaty. This provides its Member States with a range of
 instruments, resources (including budgetary resources), institutions and mutual commitments not
 available to any other group of nations seeking to address a problem of this magnitude.

 (c) the right balance should be sought between the respective contributions that can be mobilized by
 practical cooperation on the one hand and approximation or harmonization of laws on the other. The
 extent to which approximation or harmonization should be a long-term objective of the Union will
 remain the subject of ongoing study. In the meantime, the Group has sought to establish the degree
 of approximation or harmonization necessary to ensure the most effective possible framework for
 practical cooperation;

 (d) judicial cooperation needs to be brought up to a comparable level to police cooperation. Otherwise,
 it will not, in the long run, be possible to enhance further police cooperation without distortions in the
 system. Therefore, it is necessary to seek to achieve maximum synergy in cooperation between law
 enforcement (2) and the judiciary;

 (e) when it comes to the collection and analysis of data to fight organized crime, the relevant data
 protection rules have to be taken into account;

 (f) prevention is no less important than repression in any integrated approach to organized crime, to
 the extent that it aims at reducing the circumstances in which organized crime can operate. The Union
 should have the instruments to confront organized crime at each step on the continuum from
 prevention to repression and prosecution. It is particularly important that legislation does not invite
 fraud and other undue exploitation. The Member States and, where applicable, the institution issuing
 such rules should ensure that this is not the case;

 (g) the major driving force behind organized crime is the pursuit of financial gain. This both attracts it
 into an ever-increasing number of areas of activity where it sees possibilities for economic crime
 (corruption, counterfeiting, VAT and other fiscal fraud, piracy, fraud against the Community'sfinancial
 interests) and also faces it with a need to launder the profits thereafter;

 (h) organized crime has shown itself well able to turn to its advantage the speed and anonymity
 offered by modern forms of communication. This is a vast and fast-moving area, deserving of the
 sustained attention of legislators and law enforcement authorities alike.
 

 Chapter III
 Means to combat organized crime

 6. Taking into account this general approach, the Group has identified the use of the following means,
 available to the Union, to ensure that the fight against organized crime is carried out in an effective
 and coordinated manner and that a new impetus is given to the protection of the citizens of the Union:

 (a) the Union and its Member States must mobilize its full potential by introducing a maximum level of
 two-way involvement between those who draw up the initial legislation, often at Community level, and
 those whose task it is to enforce it in the police, the customs and the judiciary. This implies the full
 involvement of the Member States as well as the European Commission and a coordinated effort
 between the first and third pillars of the Union, including a full and reciprocal exchange of relevant
 information;

 (b) in combating organized crime, there is a clear need to 'know your enemy` and to agree on the
 characteristics which make it both dangerous and, it is hoped, vulnerable. This in turn requires the
 building up and pooling of analytical expertise, including support from the scientific community, from all
 Member States and, where appropriate, the European Institutions and Europol. So far as possible, this
 should be done according to common definitions, common standards and a common methodology with
 a view to facilitating the recognition of the phenomenon when it appears and the formulation of an
 effective policy to counter it, including its repression at the level of law enforcement and prosecution;

 (c) the adoption, ratification and effective implementation of all instruments directly or indirectly
 relevant to the fight against organized crime will continue to be an essential part of the Union's
 armoury. Political input from the European Council is needed to ensure:

 - that any remaining obstacles to the finalizing of the texts of unfinished instruments (for example, the
 draft Conventions on Mutual Legal Assistance and on Corruption as well as the draft Third Protocol to
 the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests and the Naples II
 Convention concerning customs cooperation) are quickly overcome,
 - that any necessary ratification procedures are urgently put on the agenda of national parliaments,
 - that the necessary implementing measures are rapidly and fully introduced;

 (d) there is a need for an effective system to be introduced to monitor the implementation by Member
 States of all the relevant instruments adopted by the Union to combat organized crime. As far as
 instruments adopted under Community law is concerned, such a system to some extent exists in the
 form of the Article 169 procedure which the Commission is responsible for initiating. No comparable
 system exists under the existing provisions of the Third Pillar. This gap could be filled by drawing on
 the experiences of, for instance, the FATF;

 (e) the problem of imperfect cooperation between the various authorities responsible for law
 enforcement and prosecution has to be addressed both within and among Member States. Centralized
 national points are recommended as an addition to, but not a replacement for, existing networks to
 facilitate exchanges of information between Member States;

 (f) it is important to optimize the role Europol might play at each stage of the fight against organized
 crime. The Europol Convention, as presently drafted, provides scope for a considerable role, and
 priority must continue to be attached to the rapid ratification and implementation of the Convention,
 without prejudice to the need to enable the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU) to fully fulfil its mandate.
 However, following the ratification of the Europol Convention, the Group sees an enhanced role for
 Europol which is set out in the detailed recommendations and could be seen to go beyond that
 provided for in the Convention;

 (g) To counter money laundering in particular the international community has drawn up a number of
 conventions, agreements and recommendations (Strasbourg, Vienna, the FATF) which are applied with
 varying degrees of rigour. The Union and its Member States must be totally rigorous, both in the
 implementation of the various international instruments to combat money laundering, as well as its
 own legislation (including the 1991 Directive), and in ensuring the maximum level of cooperation and
 two-way information exchange between its financial and fiscal institutions and its law enforcement and
 judicial authorities. This can in turn require adjustments in national procedures and a higher level of
 specialized training than is currently undertaken.
 

 PART II
 POLITICAL GUIDELINES

 7. The High Level Group recommends the European Council to approve this Action Plan and the
 time-frame indicated for its realization.

 8. Among the recommendations set out in the Action Plan are a certain number which the Group
 considers appropriate to be drawn to the particular attention of Heads of State and Government, as
 they require a commitment at the highest level. The High Level Group recommends that the European
 Council adopts the following recommendations as its own political guidelines:

 (1) The Council is requested rapidly to adopt a joint action aiming at making it an offence under the
 laws of each Member State for a person, present in its territory, to participate in a criminal
 organization, irrespective of the location in the Union where the organization is concentrated or is
 carrying out its criminal activity.
 Moreover, the European Council calls upon the Council to examine to what extent, and within which
 priority areas, a possible approximation or harmonization of Member States' laws could contribute to
 the fight against organized crime.

 (2) The European Council urges the early adoption of the Conventions, as listed in Recommendations
 13 and 14 in Part III and within the time-frame indicated there, which are considered essential for the
 common fight against organized crime.
 In order to further an effective implementation of the European Union Conventions on Extradition
 already drawn up, the European Council asks the Member States to take, at national level, the
 necessary measures to ensure that extradition requests can be dealt with in the most simple and
 expeditious manner.
 In this context, the Council should also examine, taking into account the Member States' undertakings
 under international treaties, the means to ensure that the right of asylum is not abused to avoid
 justice by offenders involved in serious crime.

 (3) The Council is requested to establish a mechanism, based on the experience with the model
 developed in the FATF, for mutually evaluating the manner in which instruments concerning
 international cooperation in criminal matters, are applied and implemented in each of the Member
 States.

 (4) The European Council reiterates that it attaches the greatest importance to an early agreement on
 the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the
 European Union. The draft should include, among other matters, provisions which aim at rendering
 reservations made to the Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and
 its Protocol superfluous in the relations between the Member States. In this context, special attention
 should be given to the reconsideration of the requirement of double criminality.

 (5) The European Council encourages the Council and the Commission to define in common with the
 candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States, a Pre-accession Pact on
 cooperation against crime, which shall be based on the acquis of the Union and may include provisions
 for close cooperation between those countries and Europol and undertakings by those countries to
 rapid ratification and full implementation of the Council of Europe instruments which are essential to
 the fight against organized crime.
 The European Council stresses the need to develop closer cooperation in the fight against organized
 crime with other countries such as Russia and Ukraine and asks the Council and the Commission to
 develop proposals to that end.

 (6) The European Council stresses the importance for each Member State to have competent law
 enforcement agencies coordinate their action, at national level, in the fight against organized crime as
 well as share information and act in a concerted manner.

 (7) Each Member State shall ensure that, in order to facilitate contacts with other Member States, with
 Europol and with the Commission, it shall have a single contact point providing access to all the law
 enforcement agencies having a responsibility to fight organized crime.

 (8) Similarly, and without prejudice to the need to foster direct contacts between judicial authorities of
 the Member States, a network for judicial cooperation should be established at the European level. In
 order to develop this network, each Member State shall set up, where this does not already exist, in
 accordance with its constitutional structure, a central contact point permitting the exchange of
 information between national judicial authorities.

 (9) Within the Council a permanent multidisciplinary Working Party on organized crime shall be
 established, consisting of competent authorities, to develop policies to coordinate the fight against
 organized crime. The setting up in each Member State of comparable multidisciplinary teams with the
 same tasks and their input into the Council Working Party would facilitate a coordinated approach at a
 European level.

 (10) The European Council reiterates its view that Europol should be given operative powers working
 together with national authorities. To that end, and without prejudice to the outcome of the IGC,
 Europol should, as soon as possible, be enabled to:

 (i) facilitate and support the preparation, coordination and carrying out of specific investigative actions
 by the competent authorities of Member States, including operational actions of joint teams comprising
 representatives of Europol in a support capacity;

 (ii) ask the competent authorities of the Member States to conduct investigations in specific cases and
 develop specific expertise which may be put at the disposal of Member States to assist them in
 investigating cases of organized crime;

 (iii) be instrumental in the collation and exchange of information by the law enforcement agencies of
 reports on suspicious financial transactions.
 Insofar as the legal instruments of the Union have to be changed in order to enable Europol to carry
 out this mandate, the European Council requests the Council to take the necessary steps rapidly to do
 so. In the meantime, the European Council stresses the need to enable the EDU to fully fulfil its
 mandate.
 An in-depth study should be carried out with a view to examining the place and the role of judicial
 authorities in their relations with Europol, in step with the enlargement of Europol's competences.

 (11) The European Council stresses the importance for each Member State of having well-developed
 and wide ranging legislation in the field of confiscation of the proceeds from crime and the laundering
 of such proceeds. The Council, and the Commission, are requested to develop proposals aiming at a
 further enhancement of such legislation bearing in mind the importance of:

 - introducing special procedures for tracing, seizure and confiscation of proceeds from crime,
 - preventing an excessive use of cash payments and cash currency exchanges by natural and legal
 persons from serving to cover up the conversion of the proceeds from crime into other property,
 - extending the scope of the laundering provisions to the proceeds from all forms of serious crime, and
 making a failure to comply with the obligation to report suspicious financial transactions liable to
 dissuasive sanctions,
 - addressing the issue of money laundering on the Internet and via electronic money products.

 (12) The European Council stresses the need for developing closer cooperation, at the national level,
 between fiscal and law enforcement authorities, in the fight against organized crime. Rules should be
 examined so that:

 - financial centres and offshore facilities subject to the jurisdiction of Member States shall have
 adequate defences against being used by organized crime,
 - in cases linked with organized crime, there is no legal bar to allowing or obliging the fiscal authorities
 to exchange information with the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, and in
 particular with the judiciary, while fully respecting fundamental rights,
 - fiscal fraud linked with organized crime is treated as any other form of organized crime,
 notwithstanding that fiscal laws may contain special rules on recovering the proceeds of fiscal fraud,
 - disbursements for criminal purposes such as corruption, are not tax-deductible.
 Moreover, the prevention and the suppression of organized fiscal fraud such as VAT and excise fraud,
 including in particular its transnational aspects, should be considerably improved at both national and
 European level.

 (13) The European Council stresses the importance of enhancing transparency in public administration
 and in businesses and preventing the use by organized crime of corrupt practices. In this context, the
 Member States, the Council and the Commission, should

 - develop, while taking account of work carried out in other international fora, a comprehensive policy
 to tackle corruption, including appropriate and efficient sanctions, but also tackling all aspects linked
 with the proper functioning of the internal market and other internal policies, as well as external
 assistance and cooperation,
 - develop rules allowing the exchange of information between Member States with respect to legal
 persons registered in each Member State and the physical persons involved in their creation, direction
 and funding, with a view to preventing the penetration of organized crime in the public and legitimate
 private sector,
 - taking necessary steps to allow the exclusion of criminal organizations or their members from
 participation in tendering procedures, receiving subsidies or governmental licences. Specific attention
 should be paid to the illicit origin of funds as a possible reason for exclusion from tendering
 procedures.

 Moreover,

 - standards should be studied and developed, where necessary, at the European level aimed at
 preventing the liberal professions and other professions particularly exposed to influences of
 organized crime, from being involved in such crime or being exploited by criminals. The active
 assistance of the professional organizations involved should be sought to that end,
 - the Union institutions as well as the Member States should, when drawing up legal instruments,
 emphasize crime prevention aspects in order to ensure that the rules do not invite fraud or other
 undue exploitation, or in other ways may be used to commit or conceal crime.

 (14) The possibilities offered by the structural funds, notably the European Social Fund and the URBAN
 programme, should be mobilized to prevent large cities in the Union from becoming breeding grounds
 for organized crime. Particular attention should be given to the circumstances in which socially
 weakgroups become vulnerable to the prospect of a criminal career. The exchange of information on
 projects which proved successful in this field should be enhanced.

 (15) A cross-pillar study on high-technology crime should be carried out. This study should pave the
 way for a policy ensuring that law enforcement and judicial authorities have the possibility to prevent
 and combat the abuse of these new technologies. Special attention should be given to both illegal
 practices and illegal content.
 Moreover, the Council and the Commission should address the issue of fraud and counterfeiting
 relating to all payment instruments, including electronic payment instruments.
 The High Level Group recommends that the European Council should ask the Council to report to it in
 June 1998 on the progress made in the carrying out of the measures proposed in the Action Plan.
 The High Level Group recommends that the European Council should instruct the Council to monitor at
 regular intervals, for instance through the meetings of the K.4 Committee, progress made in the
 carrying out of this Action Plan.
 

 PART III
 DETAILED ACTION PLAN

 This Detailed Action Plan translates in operational terms the Political Guidelines in Part II and adds
 some technical elements to ensure a coherent approach to the fight against organized crime. The
 Recommendations made in the Detailed Action Plan should be seen as a work programme, indicating
 the direction which further work by the various Union institutions and bodies shall take, rather than as
 a legal instrument.
 

 Chapter I An approach to the phenomenon of organized crime
 This Chapter draws inspiration from political guidelines Nos 5-7 and 15 set by the European Council.
 Recommendations:

 1. It is for each Member State to decide on the organization of its own structures to fight organized
 crime. Nevertheless, the High Level Group considered it appropriate that the European Council should
 stress the importance of an appropriate coordination between competent agencies at national level
 (see political guideline No 6). Such a coordination might in particular enable law enforcement agencies
 better to share information and act in a concerted manner. Therefore, each Member State should
 examine whether it would be appropriate, in accordance with its constitutional law or practice, to
 designate a body at national level which would have an overall responsibility for the coordination of
 the fight against organized crime. It will be for the authorities of the Member State - and for them
 alone - to draw the consequences of such an examination.
 Target date: end of 1997.
 Responsible (3): Member States.

 2. The Member States, and the Commission, should, where it does not already exist, set up or identify
 a mechanism for the collection and analysis of data which is so construed that it can provide a picture
 of the organized crime situation in the Member State and which can assist law enforcement authorities
 in fighting organized crime. Member States shall use common standards for the collection and analysis
 of data. The information so collected and analysed shall be organized in such a way that it is readily
 accessible for investigations and prosecutions at national level and can be effectively used and
 exchanges with other Member States.
 To that end, the Member States and the Commission shall set up a Contact and Support Network to
 serve as advising mechanism for the collection of data and the analysis at European level. Europol
 shall be integrated in this work and produce annual reports on the basis of the information from the
 Member States. The academic and scientific world should be further encouraged to contribute by their
 studies and research to the understanding of the phenomenon of organized crime.
 Target date: mid 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council/Europol/Commission.

 3. The European Council encourages the Council and the Commission to define in common with the
 candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States, a Pre-accession Pact on
 cooperation against crime, which may include provisions for close cooperation between these
 countries and Europol and undertakings for the rapid ratification and full implementation of the Council
 of Europe instruments which are essential to the fight against organized crime (see political guideline
 No 5). The Pact should be based on the acquis of the Union in the field of organized crime and form
 part of the pre-accession strategy in which the potential of the existing instruments such as the Phare
 programme should be fully explored. In the discussions with the candidate countries, the need should
 be underlined for them to reach a standard which is comparable to that of the Member States of the
 Union, in particular as regards undertakings contained in international instruments such as those
 relating to terrorism. In this context, it should be examined whether these countries could be
 associated with some of the activities of the Multidisciplinary Party on Organized Crime.
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Council/Commission.

 4. Separate from the discussions on a Pre-accession Pact, it is necessary to develop closer cooperation
 with other countries and international organizations and bodies involved in the fight against organized
 crime. In particular relations with the Union's Transatlantic partners as well as with Russia and Ukraine
 need to be developed, the latter two for instance through the Tacis programme. Concrete proposals
 for closer cooperation, for instance through the intermediary of Europol, should be developed by the
 Council and the Commission (see political guideline No 5).
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Council/Commission.

 5. A cross-pillar study on high-technology crime and its use and links with organized crime should be
 carried out within the Union (see political guideline No 15). This study should pave the way for a policy
 ensuring an efficient public protection. While avoiding undue restrictions, law enforcement and judicial
 authorities should have the means, as a complement to the specific responsibilities incumbent on the
 technology and service-providers, to prevent and combat the misuse of these new technologies.
 Attention should be paid both to illegal practices (such as the use of these technologies by criminal
 organizations to facilitate their activities) or illegal contents (such as child pornography or
 dissemination of synthetic drug recipes).
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Commission/Europol/Council.
 

 Chapter II
 Prevention of organized crime

 This Chapter draws inspiration from political guidelines Nos 13-14 set by the European Council.

 Recommendations:

 6. A comprehensive policy against corruption should be developed, taking into account the work
 already carried out also in other international fora, in order to enhance the transparency in public
 administration, at the level of both the Member States and the Communities (see political guideline No
 13). This policy should primarily focus on elements of prevention, addressing such issues as the impact
 of defective legislation, public-private relationships, transparency of financial management, rules on
 participation in public procurement, and criteria for appointments to positions of public responsibility,
 etc. It should also cover the area of sanctions, be they of a penal, administrative or civil character, as
 well as the impact of the Union's policy on relations with third States.
 Target date: mid 1998.
 Responsible: Commission/Council/Member States.

 7. The Member States and the European Commission should ensure that the applicable legislation
 provides for the possibility for an applicant in a public tender procedure who has committed offences
 connected with organized crime to be excluded from the participation in tender procedures conducted
 by Member States and by the Community. In this context it should be studied whether and under what
 conditions persons who are currently under investigation or prosecution for involvement in organized
 crime could also be excluded. Specific attention should be paid to the illicit origin of funds as a possible
 reason for exclusion. The decision of exclusion of the person from participation in the tender procedure
 should be capable of being challenged in court.
 Similarly, the Member States and the Commission should ensure that the applicable legislation
 provides for the possibility of rejecting, on the basis of the same criteria, applications for subsidies or
 governmental licences (see political guideline No 13).
 Appropriate Community instruments and instruments of the European Union, enabling inter alia
 exchange of information among Member States and between Member States and the Commission, and
 containing specific provisions relating to the role of the Commission both in administrative cooperation
 and the setting up of black-lists, should be drawn up to ensure that these commitments can be carried
 out, while ensuring conformity with the relevant rules relating to data protection.
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Commission.

 8. Member States shall, with respect to legal persons registered in their territory, seek to collect
 information, in compliance with the relevant rules relating to data protection, with respect to the
 physical persons involved in their creation and direction, as well as their funding, as a means to
 prevent the penetration of organized crime in the public and legitimate private sector. It should be
 studied how such data could be systematically compiled and analysed and be available for exchange
 with other Member States and, where appropriate, with bodies responsible at Union level for the fight
 against organized crime, on the basis of appropriate rules to be developed by the Council (see political
 guideline No 13).
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council/Commission.

 9. The possibilities offered by structural funds, notably the European Social Fund in the context of
 action to assist the labour market, and the Urban programme, should be mobilized to prevent large
 cities in the Union from becoming breeding grounds for organized crime. Those funds can help those
 most at risk of exclusion from the labour market and thus alleviate the circumstances that could
 contribute to the development of organized crime. Particular attention should be given to groups not
 fully integrated in society, since these may be vulnerable targets for criminal organizations. The
 exchange of information on projects which proved successful in this field should be enhanced. The
 results of the annual consultations of Chiefs of police from the capitals of Member States should be
 taken into account in this context (see political guideline No 14).
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Commission/Member States.

 10. The Member States should consult regularly the competent services of the Commission with a view
 to analysing cases of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community, and deepening the
 knowledge and understanding of the complexities of these phenomena within existing mechanisms
 and frameworks. If necessary, additional mechanisms shall be put in place with a view to arranging
 such consultations on a regular basis. In this context, future relations between Europol and the
 Commission's anti-fraud unit (Uclaf) should be taken into account.
 Target date: end 1997.
 Responsible: Member States/Commission/Europol.

 11. The Council should adopt a joint action establishing a specific multi-annual programme to combat
 organized crime, including fraud affecting the financial interests of the Communities, permitting specific
 actions in the fields of training for key players responsible for preventive policies, exchanges of
 information, research, and other forms of improving skills and operational methods.
 Target date: end 1997
 Responsible: Council/Commission.

 12. Measures to shield certain vulnerable professions from influences of organized crime should be
 developed, for instance through the adoption of codes of conduct. A study should propose specific
 measures, including legislative action, to prevent notaries, lawyers, accountants and auditors from
 being exploited or getting involved in organized crime and ensure that their professional organizations
 are engaged in the establishment and enforcement of such codes of conduct at the European level
 (see political guideline No 13).
 Target date: mid 1998 and, possibly, joint action mid 1999.
 Responsible: Council/Commission/Member States (in cooperation with the professional organizations
 concerned, e. g. the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community (CCBE)).
 

 Chapter III
 Legal instruments, scope, implementation

 This Chapter draws inspiration from political guidelines Nos 1-5 and 15 set by the European Council.

 Recommendations:

 13. Member States consider that the conventions mentioned below and in recommendation 14 are
 essential to the fight against organized crime (see political guideline No 2). Those States which have
 not yet ratified them should make proposals to their Parliaments with a view to a speedy ratification
 within the given timetable. Should any convention not have been ratified by the set target date, they
 shall report to the Council in writing on the reasons therefor every six months until the convention has
 been ratified.
 If a Member State has not ratified a convention within a reasonable time for any given reason, the
 Council shall assess the situation with a view to solving it. As part of the Pre-accession Pact (see
 political guideline No 5) to be defined with the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe,
 including the Baltic States, undertakings should be sought from these countries of a similar character.

 1. European Convention on Extradition, Paris 1957.

 2. Second Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, Strasbourg 1978.

 3. Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Strasbourg 1978.

 4. Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime,
 Strasbourg 1990.

 5. Convention on Mutual Assistance between Customs Administrations and Protocol thereto, Naples
 1967.

 6. Agreement on Illicit Traffic by Sea, implementing Article 17 of the United Nations Convention against
 Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Strasbourg 1995.

 7. Convention on the Fight against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Vienna
 1988.

 8. European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Strasbourg 1977.
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Member States.

 14. The following European Union conventions should each be ratified (see political guideline No 2) by
 the target dates set out below, while taking into account availability of explanatory reports, where
 applicable. When drawing up new conventions, the Council should set a target date for their adoption
 and implementation in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the Member States.

 1. Convention on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union -
 end 1998.

 2. Europol Convention - end 1997 as an absolute latest date.

 3. Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests - mid 1998.

 4. Convention on the Use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes - end 1998.

 5. Convention relating to Extradition between the Member States of the European Union - end 1998.

 6. Protocols to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests -
 mid 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council.
 Moreover, all efforts should be made to ensure that current discussions on draft instruments, and in
 particular those relating to the draft Third Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of the
 European Communities' Financial Interests, the draft Convention on Corruption and the so-called
 Naples II draft Convention on customs cooperation are finalized by the end of 1997.
 Responsible: Council.

 15. A mechanism should be established, based on the experience with the model developed in the
 FATF, to mutually evaluate the application and implementation at national level of the European Union
 and other international instruments and undertakings in criminal matters as well as ensuing national
 law, policies and practices (see political guideline No 3). Such a mutual 'peer-evaluation` should as a
 priority be carried out in respect of judicial cooperation and, could, if the experience proves positive, be
 extended to other areas of implementation.
 The evaluation should be based on the following principles: parity of the Member States, mutual trust,
 pre-established scope and criteria for the evaluation in the form of a self-evaluation and, in respect of
 the mutual evaluation procedure, check-lists and an assurance that experts from all Member States
 will participate, at some stage, in the evaluation process. The results of the evaluation shall remain
 confidential unless the Member State concerned wishes to make them public.
 Target date: end 1997/mid 1998.
 Responsible: Council/Member States/Commission.

 16. In order to render judicial cooperation in the fight against organized crime more efficient, the
 ongoing work on a draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters should be finalized
 before the end of 1997 (see political guideline No 4). As soon as possible, the content of the
 Convention should be enlarged, while taking into account the necessity to accelerate procedures for
 judicial cooperation in matters relating to organized crime and considerably reducing delay in
 transmission and responses to requests.
 Instruments adopted by the Council regarding individuals who cooperate with the judicial process and
 on the protection of witnesses as well as the specific needs of police cooperation connected with
 pre-trial investigations and judicial cooperation in certain countries should be considered.
 Specific consideration to the needs to fight organized crime should be given in the ongoing work on a
 draft Convention. To this end, the competent working party should examine how:

 (a) reservations entered with regard to the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance and its
 Protocol can be rendered superfluous among Member States of the European Union, for instance by
 including provisions in the draft providing for the safeguarding of principles of non bis in idem, by
 reconsidering requirements of double criminality or by making use of the right of refusal under the
 Convention only in cases where the request is likely to prejudice the sovereignty, security, public
 order, or other essential interests of the Member State;

 (b) a legal basis could be created for the trans-boundary application of certain modern investigative
 methods, such as controlled delivery, deployment of undercover agents and the interception of various
 forms of telecommunications.
 Target date: end 1997/mid 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council.

 17. The Council is requested rapidly to adopt a joint action aiming at making it an offence under the
 laws of each Member State for a person, present in its territory, to participate in a criminal
 organization, irrespective of the location in the Union where the organization is concentrated or is
 carrying out its criminal activity (see political guideline No 1). Such an offence could consist in the
 behaviour described in Article 3(4) of the Extradition Convention, adopted by the Council on 27
 September 1996. Since legal traditions differ among Member States, it could be considered acceptable,
 for a limited period of time, that not all Member States will be able to sign up immediately to the
 agreed definition.
 Target date: end 1997.
 Responsible: Council.
 Moreover, the Council should examine to what extent, and within which priority areas, a possible
 approximation or harmonization of Member States' laws could contribute to the fight against organized
 crime. The study should in particular make concrete proposals as to the areas which could be
 considered as priority areas and assess the practical effects in the fight against organized crime of an
 approximation or harmonization of the laws of the Member States in those areas.
 Target date: end 1999.
 Responsible: Council.

 18. Furthermore, the following specific starting points for future discussions on organized crime, most
 of them agreed by the Council in the 1993 report on organized crime should be established, while
 taking account of the rights of indivifuals and in particular the alleged offender and bona fide third
 parties:

 a) combating those forms of crime which affect the Communities' financial interests in close
 cooperation between the Member States and the Commission;

 b) liability of legal persons should be introduced where the legal person has been involved in
 organized crime;

 c) fairly long time limits for prosecution of serious offences connected with organized crime should be
 provided for;

 d) addressing the issue of fraud and counterfeiting relating to all payment instruments including
 electronic payment instruments (see political guideline No 15).
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsibile: Council/Member States/Commission.

 Chapter IV
 Practical cooperation between police, judicial authorities and customs in the fight against
 organized crime
 

 This Chapter draws inspiration from political guidelines No 6-9 set by the European Council.

 Recommendations:

 19. Central national contact points, where they do not already exist, should be designated, while fully
 respecting the constitutional structure of each Member State, in order to speed up the exchange of
 information and the completion of application procedures for law enforcement cooperation, wherever a
 national authority in a Member State considers that it would be more efficient to direct itself to a
 central contact point instead of making direct contact with the authority in another Member State (see
 political guideline No 7). With regard to the Europol Convention, the central national unit referred to
 therein should be the contact point on behalf of all law enforcement authorities in the Member States.
 It is advisable that existing contact points, such as the Interpol NCB, Sirene bureaux, etc. should be
 brought together in this central contact point, or least, that close relations between such units should
 be established.
 These contact points should serve as an interface in bringing the competent authorities in the Member
 States and the Commission into contact with each other rapidly. A second function of these contact
 points might be to act as a national focus point for information to law enforcement agencies on
 national legislation, jurisdiction and procedures. The relevant information concerning these central
 contact points shall be kept by the General Secretariat of the Council and shall be regularly updated.
 Target date: end 1997.
 Responsible: Member States/Council/Commission.

 20. Political guideline No 6 underlines the importance of coordination between competent law
 enforcement authorities at national level. Therefore, while taking into account constitutional structures
 and national traditions, and taking into account the fact that each Member State decides on its own
 internal structures, it is advisable that multidisciplinary integrated teams should be set up at national
 level, if they do not already exist, specifically in the area of organized crime (see political guideline No 6
 and 9). Unlike the contact points referred to in Recommendation No 19, the primary function of which is
 to facilitate contacts and to relay information to other Member States, these coordinating teams
 should have sufficient insight into national criminal investigations to be able to contribute to the
 development of national policies in the fight against organized crime.
 These teams could discuss the results of Europol's analyses with a view to initiating large-scale joint
 multidisciplinary investigations involving two or more Member States. Given the broad range of tasks
 involved, it is necessary to ensure an efficient coordination between the investigating authorities and
 the judicial authorities. In the interests of smooth cooperation, it is advisable that the national contact
 points and the multidisciplinary integrated team cooperate very closely with one another.
 Target date: mid 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Europol/Commission.

 21. While taking into account national legal systems, safeguarding judicial independence and taking
 into account the fact that each Member State decides on its own internal structures, the Member
 States should seek to pool their resources at European level by setting up a network for judicial
 cooperation. The network should be given a special mandate and consist of practitioners having
 extensive practical experience in fighting organized crime. In this context, the study being conducted
 by the Belgian authorities under the Grotius programme in the setting up of a judicial contact network
 may be examined (see political guideline No 8).
 In order to develop this network, each Member State should designate a central contact point
 permitting the exchange of information between national judicial authorities, while fully respecting
 safeguards provided for by national law.
 This network shall be given the appropriate logistical support by the Third Pillar structures, to discuss
 questions of practical judicial cooperation and it shall act as a clearing house, problem-solver and
 contact maker between judicial authorities at national level (4).
 An in-depth study should be carried out with a view to examining the place and the role of judicial
 authorities in their relations with Europol, in step with the enlargement of Europol's competences (see
 political guideline No 10). In that context, and if the experience of the network proves to be positive, it
 could in the future be examined whether it should in the long term be transformed into a more
 permanent structure, which could become an important interlocutor of Europol.
 Target date: mid 1998.
 Responsible: Council.

 22. Within the Council, a multidisciplinary Working Party on Organized Crime, should be established
 within the Third Pillar structures, consisting of competent high level authorities, for the purpose of
 developing policy orientations to coordinate the fight against organized crime. At the same time, the
 Working Group on International Organized Crime, set up under Steering Group III, should be
 abolished and the Working Group on Drugs and Organized crime should either limit its remit to drugs
 issues relevant to tasks performed in accordance with Article K of the Treaty or be abolished. Coreper
 is requested to examine the matter with a view to taking a decision.
 The fact that the multidisciplinary working party has been established should not hinder items relating
 for instance purely to police cooperation against organized crime being dealt with by other Council
 working groups. It is a matter for the K4 Committee to decide on the appropriate coordination
 between working groups under its responsibility.
 The new Working Party on Organized Crime, to be attended by competent authorities such as
 representatives of comparable coordination teams wherever such teams have been designated, or at
 least with the input of such teams, together with officials involved in policy-making and
 representatives of Europol, could be assigned the task of pinpointing, on the basis of assessment of
 practical cooperation, difficulties resolvable only by means of political decision-making, and design the
 strategies and policies of the Union in the fight against organized crime and prepare matters which
 require decisions at a high level. Examples that come to mind are decisions on new instruments (for
 instance relating to practical police cooperation), priorities in tackling organized crime and other forms
 of agreements needed for the efficient fight against organized crime.
 Target date: end 1997.
 Responsible: Council/Coreper.
 

 Chapter V
 Development of a fully-fledged Europol and extension of Europol's mandate and tasks

 This Chapter draws inspiration from political guidelines No 5 and 10 by the European Council.

 Recommendations:

 23. The Member States and the Council should take all necessary preparatory and budgetary
 measures with a view to enable Europol to take up its activities at the latest by mid 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council.

 24. The possibilities for Europol to cooperate and liaise with third countries and international
 organizations should be elaborated. To that end, the Council should draw up one or more suitable
 legal instruments which ensure that contacts may be entertained with the Commission and third
 countries which are the most important partners for the Member States in the fight against organized
 crime, with relevant international organizations such as Interpol and the World Customs Organization
 (WCO).
 Target date: end 1999.
 Responsible: Member States/Council/Europol.

 25. Without prejudice to the outcome of the IGC, Europol's mandate and tasks will, as soon as
 possible, be further developed, taking into account the decision of the Heads of State and Government
 at the Dublin Summit, to include the following:

 (a) Europol should be enabled to facilitate and support the preparation, coordination and carrying out
 of specific investigative actions by the competent authorities of the Member States, including
 operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity. The
 legislation of each Member State will determine which authority is competent, be they police, customs
 or judicial authorities;

 (b) Europol should be allowed to ask Member States to conduct investigations in specific cases.
 Europol could in this respect take the initiative of drawing the attention of the competent authorities of
 one or more Member States to the importance of having certain matters investigated, although such
 an initiative would not oblige the Member State(s) concerned to take action as requested;

 (c) Europol should develop specific expertise which may be put at the disposal of Member States to
 assist them in investigating cases of organized cross-border crime (see political guideline No 10);

 (d) Full use should be made of possibilities of Europol in fields of operational techniques and support,
 analysis and data analyses files (for instance registers on stolen cars or other property). The
 development of operational techniques could take the form of studies of practices at national and
 Union level and their effectiveness, and the development of common strategies, policies and tactics.
 The development of operational support could, inter alia, take the form of the organization of
 meetings, the development of common action plans and their implementation, strategic analyses,
 facilitating information and intelligence exchange, analytical support for multilateral national
 investigations, technical and tactical support, legal support, offering technical facilities, development of
 common manuals, facilitating training, evaluation of results and giving advice to the competent
 authorities of the Member States;

 (e) Access by Europol may be sought to the Schengen Information System or its European successor.

 The Council will need to assess, without prejudice to the rapid ratification and implementation of the
 Europol Convention, whether the development of the role of Europol requires amendment to the
 Convention, and, if so, immediate steps should be taken. In the meantime, the EDU should be able of
 fully fulfil its mandate.
 An in-depth study should be carried out with a view to examining the place and the role of judicial
 authorities in their relations with Europol, in step with the enlargement of Europol's competences.
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council/Europol.

 Chapter VI
 Organized crime and money

 This Chapter draws inspiration from political guidelines No 5, 10-12 set by the European Council.

 Recommendations:

 26. In the field of money-laundering and confiscation of the proceeds from crime, the following
 measures should be envisaged:

 (a) to improve the international exchange of police data, it is necessary to set up a system for
 exchanging information concerning suspected money-laundering at the European level, in conformity
 with the relevant rules relating to data protection. To this end, the Europol Convention should be
 supplemented with a provision permitting Europol to be instrumental therein (see political guideline No
 10);

 (b) criminalization of laundering of the proceeds of crime should be made as general as possible, and a
 legal basis should be created for as broad as possible a range of powers of investigation into it. The
 opportunity of extending laundering to negligent behaviour should be examined. A study should be
 undertaken with a view to strengthening the tracing and seizure of illegal assets and of the
 enforcement of court decisions on the confiscation of assets of organized crime (see political guideline
 No 11);

 (c) confiscation rules should be introduced which enable confiscation regardless of the presence of the
 offender, such as when the offender has died or absconded (see political guideline No 11);

 (d) there should be a study of the possibility to share, at the level of Member States, assets,
 confiscated following international cooperation (see political guideline No 11);

 (e) the reporting obligation in Article 6 of the Money-Laundering Directive should be extended to all
 offences connected with serious crime and to persons and professions other than the financial
 institutions mentioned in the Directive. Member States should examine the opportunity of making the
 failure to report suspicious transactions liable to dissuasive sanctions (see political guideline No 11). At
 the same time, fiscal authorities should be subjected in the national law to a similar reporting
 obligation for transactions connected with organized crime, at least for transactions relating to VAT
 and excise. Cooperation between contact points under the Directive need to be improved;

 (f) addressing the issue of money-laundering on the Internet and via electronic money products and
 requiring, in electronic payment and message systems, that the messages sent give details of the
 originator and the beneficiary (see political guideline No 11);

 (g) preventing an excessive use of cash payments and cash exchanges by natural and legal persons
 from serving to cover up the conversion of the proceeds from crime into other property (see political
 guideline No 11);
 Moreover, the Council and the Commission should consider in the light of existing national and
 international instruments the need to put in place common provisions to combat organized crime in the
 fields of economic and commercial counterfeiting as well as counterfeiting and falsification of banknotes
 and coins in view of the introduction of the single currency.
 Target date: end 1998.
 Responsible: Council/Europol/Commission.

 27. Adequate legislation, and public awareness, particularly in the financial sector, to combat
 money-laundering and other forms of financial crime is necessary for potential members of the Union.
 This subject should be given high priority in the structured dialogue and programmes such as Phare.
 The need for the countries concerned to join international commitments in this field, and in particular
 the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of Proceeds from
 Crime, should also be addressed in the Preaccession Pact on cooperation against crime (see political
 guideline No 5).
 Target date: end 1999.
 Responsible: Council/Commission.

 28. A study should be undertaken on the basis of practical experiences as to what extent legislation of
 the Member States relating to criminal proceedings and procedures for international cooperation in the
 tracing, seizure and confiscation of assets from crime, and financial investigations for that purpose,
 should be further developed.
 Target date: end of 1999.
 Responsible: Member States/Commission.

 29. Legislation to combat organized crime in connection with fiscal fraud should be developed in
 conformity with the relevant rules relating to data protection (see political guideline No 12). To this end
 the following should be examined so that:

 - in cases linked with organized crime, there should be no legal bar to allowing or obliging the fiscal
 authorities to exchange, at the national level, information with the competent authorities of the
 Member State concerned, and in particular not with the judiciary, while fully respecting fundamental
 rights,
 - fiscal fraud linked organized crime should be treated as any other form of organized crime,
 notwithstanding that fiscal laws may contain special rules on recovering the proceeds of fiscal fraud,
 - disbursements for criminal purposes such as corruption, should not be tax deductible,
 - the prevention and suppression of organized fiscal fraud such as VAT and excise fraud, including its
 transnational aspects, should be improved at both the national and the European level.
 Target date: end of 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council/Commission.

 30. Member States should examine how to take action and provide adequate defenses against the
 use by organized crime of financial centres and off-shore facilities, in particular where these are
 located in places subject to their jurisdiction. With respect to those located elsewhere, the Council
 should develop a common policy, consistent with the policy conducted by Member States internally,
 with a view to prevent the use thereof by criminal organizations operating within the Union (see
 political guideline No 12).
 Target date: 1998.
 Responsible: Member States/Council/Commission.
 

 (1) It is recalled that the European Council also welcomed the report made by the Irish Presidency on
 stepping up the fight against organized crime (see 11564/4/96 CK4 53, REV 4) and asked the Council
 to reinforce its Secretariat, in order to implement rapidly the measures proposed in the report.

 (2) Where this Action Plan mentions law enforcement agencies, it includes, where appropriate, its
 financial regulators as well as customs agencies even if in a particular Member State they are not
 considered to be a law enforcement agency.

 (3) Each recommendation given an indication of the body or bodies to be considered responsible for
 implementation. In each case it is clearly understood that the body or bodies concerned will exercise
 that responsibility within its competences as laid down in the Treaty on European Union.

 (4) See the document approved by the Dublin European Council, CK4 53, REV 4.
 
 

 ANNEX

 Letter from the High Level Group to the IGC
 The High Level Group, created by the European Council (Dublin, 13 and 14 December 1996), and
 tasked to examine the fight against organized crime in all its aspects, has also been requested to
 refer any issues involving Treaty change to the Intergovernmental Conference.
 The High Level Group has, at its meeting on 9 April 1997, adopted an Action Plan containing political
 guidelines to be endorsed by the European Council (Amsterdam, 16 and 17 June 1997), as well as a
 detailed action plan which, as necessary, translates the political guidelines into a work programme to
 be implemented by the Union and its Member States. The Action Plan is in an Annex to this letter.
 In adopting the report, sometimes after lengthy discussions on certain points, the High Level Group
 agreed that the consensus reached was without prejudice to any positions delegations might take in
 the Intergovernmental Conference. This is true in particular with a view to certain proposals already
 on the table in the Intergovernmental Conference.
 First of all, it was felt that a distinction should be made between recommendations of the Group to the
 European Council that could require Treaty change, and recommendations which might be
 implemented on the basis of the present Treaty, but might be translated into provisions of the new
 Treaty, in order for the Treaty to better reflect the priority that the Union is to give to the fight against
 organized crime.
 Secondly, whilst the Group on a number of occasions touched upon the question of improving the
 effectiveness of European cooperation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, it felt that it should not
 focus on questions of a primarily institutional character, such as decision-making and instruments of
 the Union. While these questions are of considerable importance also for the Union's ability to fight
 against organized crime, the Group abstained from taking a position since these questions are under
 consideration in the IGC anyway.
 In the political guidelines presented by the Group, it is recommended that Europol be granted
 operative powers as defined in political guideline No 10. The Group invites the Intergovernmental
 Conference to consider whether this requires a change of Article K.1.9. of the Treaty and to act
 accordingly.
 Some other recommendations, whilst not necessarily leading to Treaty change, might still be even
 better implemented if the future Treaty were to provide for a legal and institutional basis. This is the
 case for political guideline No 3, which calls for a mutual evaluation mechanism of the application and
 implementation of instruments concerning international cooperation in criminal matters. Moreover,
 political guideline No 5 stresses the need for closer cooperation in the fight against organized crime
 with relevant third countries. Such cooperation might equally merit a reflection in the Treaty.
 The deliberations of the Group as reflected in Chapters II and III might provide even further material
 for consideration by the IGC. This is particularly the case with regard to the need to bring practical
 judicial cooperation to a comparable level with police cooperation.
 The Group has spent some time discussing the contribution that legislative approximation or
 harmonization might offer to the fight against organized crime. It limited itself to a political guideline
 related to criminal organizations (namely political guideline No 1), with a view to ensuring the most
 effective possible framework for practical cooperation. The Intergovernmental Conference will note
 that in the opinion of the Group, the question whether approximation or harmonization of Member
 States' laws could contribute to the fight against organized crime, is a matter to be examined (namely
 political guideline No 1).
 Close coordination, both at the national and the Union level, between the various agencies (police,
 justice, customs) that take part in the fight against organized crime is considered by the Group to be
 of paramount importance. Although such coordination is primarily to be achieved through
 organizational measures, it might merit to be reflected in the Treaty as a matter of principle.
 The same applies to the notion of prevention as a necessary corollary to repression. As the report
 states at various places (namely political guideline No 13), prevention (notably in the area of
 corruption, fraud and money-laundering) requires not only increased efforts by Member States and
 closer cooperation between them at European Union level but also full exercise of the Union's
 possibilities in the first pillar.
 Finally, given the overall need for the Union to organize itself better in the fight against organized
 crime in all its forms, the phenomenon should be mentioned as such among the objectives of the
 Union's cooperation in the third pillar.
 

FONTE : http://ue.eu.int/ejn/indexfr.htm