MEP Monika Hohlmeier and Michèle Coninsx, President of Eurojust, discuss how to prevent radicalisation and counter foreign fighters.

Combatting terrorism: arming Europe's judicial response

https://api.multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20125/11581754/n003-0404-en.srt

National policies adopted  integrate diverse measures

to counter the phenomenon of foreign  fighters and prevent radicalisation.

The role of Eurojust  is to support cooperation

between national prosecuting authorities.

Considering the number of victims  of the last attacks in Paris and Brussels,

We asked Michèle Coninsx,  President of Eurojust,

It is indeed because of the victims  that we are working so hard

and that we are focusing on the judicial  dimension of the fight against terrorism.

The rule of law context  and constitutional state context

oblige us to fight terrorists  taking the criminal justice approach.

But there are certain holes  in our data exchange systems.

over the years from the Member States  to really exchange data.

But on the other hand, there is existing  legislation that prohibits data exchange.

To make use of Eurojust  at the earliest stage possible.

And even to make more use  of the facilities offered by Eurojust:

its cooperation facilities,  accelerated judicial cooperation

a forum to operationally  exchange information in real time,

the user coordination centres,  and to join investigation teams

Which I call the Rolls Royce  of mutual legal assistance.

I think Member States are now seeing,  and they are under pressure,

that they have to learn very quickly  that cooperation must be improved.

And the exchange and justice support  between States is sometimes very slow.

Did the Paris and Brussels attacks  change your approach to the problem?

We have been working on terrorism  for years, since 11 March 2004,

and we have built up a network  of devoted, operational,

highly-specialised  counter-terrorism prosecutors.

And since 2013, we have been focusing  on foreign terrorist fighters.

So we were already on top of  identifying the problem.

It shocked me that this is possible  but it didn't change my view

because I trust the security institutions.

But in my view, data protection  is given a very high value in our society

and the security issue  is very often dealt with

as if it were a breach of data protection.

No, I think security institutions  have to save our lives.

The EU doesn't have a common definition  for terrorism or criminalisation,

is there a need  for a common legal framework?

From a criminal point of view,  this certainly is reality,

so we have to ensure that for a common  problem we find a common approach.

There are prosecution gaps when there  isn't the same common legal framework.

This is one of the goals  of the Terrorism Directive,

for there to be a common basis  of a common legal framework.

It's clear that criminal law  is a Member State responsibility.

But perhaps Eurojust can fulfil  one very important function,

that of exchanging  the most successful measures:

is it more successful to do it  the way one Member State is doing,

But which prosecution gaps  are we talking about?

Recruitment of solo actors was not being  tackled by some of the Member States.

We saw that training mainly referred  to active training,

not to passive training,  undergoing training.

We also saw that membership  in a terrorist organisation

was translated differently  in different Member States.

What is a person travelling  with terrorist intentions?

What is a person getting organising and  financing travel with terrorist intentions?

And what is a person returning back  with terrorist intentions?

The first gap that we need to close  is data exchange.

There is a huge gap, Member States  are still not as quick as they should be.

We need a bit more confidence in  our security institutions, they need backing.

Combatting terrorism: arming Europe's judicial response

Info

Description