Contents

1. The war against terrorism is boosting the European far-Right

2. Telecommunications surveillance: narrow vote in EP on data retention

3. EU Presidency puts the case for private security

4. Telecommunications surveillance: mystery of the missing minutes

5. Irish government not consulted on European arrest warrant proposal

6. News in brief

[All articles include background and full-text documentation]

1. THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM IS BOOSTING THE EUROPEAN FAR-RIGHT
- special report from the Institute of Race Relations

The EU, in following the US approach to fighting terrorism, is seriously undermining its own democratic traditions and creating an explosive racism.
This is the damming verdict of the Institute of Race Relations, which presents its findings in a new report published 24 April 2002. "Racism: the hidden cost of September 11" represents the first attempt to examine the
impact of September 11, and the subsequent war against terrorism, on race relations across Europe. And it details who is most affected by the denial of civil liberties - and how. Asylum seekers, foreigners (principally Arabs) and Europe's Muslim minorities are the biggest losers. European
anti-terrorist laws, adopted post- September 11, have bred a culture of suspicion in which anyone of Middle-Eastern appearance is treated as an 'enemy alien'. Meanwhile, the far-Right and anti-immigrant parties have used September 11 for electoral gain - demonising Islam and its cultural
and religious practices. Racism: the hidden cost of September 11, a special issue of the European Race Bulletin costs £5 and is available from the Institute of Race Relations, 2-6 Leeke Street, London WC1X 9HS, UK. For
more information see:

2. SURVEILLANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE EU: NARROW VOTE IN EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON DATA RETENTION

There was a narrow vote in the European Parliament yesterday (18.4.02) on the retention of telecommunications data - in the Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights the vote was 25 to 19 in favour of opposing the Council of the European Union (the 15 EU governments) proposal. The Committee was
voting on its 2nd reading report on the proposal to amend the 1997 EU Directive on privacy in telecommunications. The original proposal from the European Commission simply put forward a number of updating changes but the Council - backing the demands of the law enforcement agencies (police,
customs, immigration and internal security agencies) - agreed a "common position" allowing the retention of all communications data. In the wake of 11 September the European Commission abandoned its opposition in December -
despite the clearly stated views of the EU Data Protection Commissioners.
The final vote on the parliament's second reading position will take place at the plenary session on 15 May when, under the rules, the maintenance of this position requires 314 votes in favour.


3. EU PRESIDENCY DEFIES EU TREATIES, ECJ CASE LAW AND COUNCIL LEGAL SERVICE TO PUT THE CASE FOR PRIVATE SECURITY

In December of last year, the incoming Spanish presidency of the European Union presented a proposal to establish a "network of contact points of authorities with responsibility for private security". Then, after
successive drafts of the proposal in January and February, the EU Council Legal Service delivered an opinion clearly opposing any Council Decision on the grounds that it "encroached upon the sphere of Community competence and
was not feasible under Article 47 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)".
This opinion has been quickly countered by the legal service of Spanish State Secretariat for Legal Affairs and the Spanish presidency is determined to press ahead with the proposal. Unable to address the powerful legal argument, it has instead put the case that private security is now
inextricably linked to public security provided by the state, and therefore a matter for the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council.


4. EU SURVEILLANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS: MYSTERY OF THE MISSING MINUTES WHICH SURFACE NEARLY A YEAR LATE

Under the Swedish Presidency of the European Union a proposal was being discussed to update the infamous ENFOPOL 98 - which sought to extend the surveillance of telecommunications to e-mails and the internet. This was
not adopted because of a huge outcry by civil society. ENFOPOL 98 resurfaced as ENFOPOL 29 in a new and revised form - in the spring of 2001 - setting out how the "Requirements" to be placed on service and network
providers should be interpreted in the EU (the "Requirements" were adopted in the EU on 17 January 1995 in secret by "written procedure"). ENFOPOL 29
was approved at the meeting of COREPER (the high-level representatives committee drawn from each EU member state) on 23 May 2001 and it appeared on the "A" Point agenda (ie: it would simply be nodded through by the Ministers without debate) for the Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) on
28-29 May 2001. Although not adopted by that JHA Council, the minutes of the preparatory Article 36 Committee (which discusses working party negotiations and prepares debates and legislation for COREPER and the JHA Council) meeting on 3 and 4 May 2001 have now emerged almost a year late -
suggesting a clear cover-up - and the issue now appears to back on the EU agenda.

5. IRISH GOVERNMENT NOT CONSULTED ON EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT PROPOSAL

The Irish government was not consulted on the proposal for a Framework Decision on a European arrest warrant before it was put forward by the European Commission. The usual procedure is for the Commission to consult
with external experts (like academics and layers) and with senior national government officials before putting forward a proposal. Despite this lack of consultation Ireland will have to transform the proposal into its national law by the end of 2003.


NEWS IN BRIEF


* European Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on 'cybercrime', including cyber-terrorism

* EU General Affairs Council, 15 April 2002 (Luxembourg): Council conclusions on Illegal immigration

* Amnesty International report on people held in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay

* UK Police Reform Bill, full-text and Explanatory Notes

* UK Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill: full-text and Explanatory Notes