Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:03 am
Time: 2:03 am
Results for policing (europe)
4 results foundAuthor: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Title: Data in Focus Report: Police Stops and Minorities Summary: EU-MIDIS, the first EU-wide survey to ask immigrant and ethnic minority groups about their experiences of discrimination and criminal victimisation in everyday life shows that: •Minorities were stopped by the police more often than the majority groups living in the same neighbourhoods in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France and Hungary. This was not the case in the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Italy or Romania. Some minority groups are particularly heavily policed – for example Roma respondents in Greece who were stopped by the police experienced on average nearly 6 stops in a 12 month period. •Majority respondents tend to think that the police are respectful towards them, whereas more minority respondents indicate that the police are disrespectful. For example, in Belgium, 85% of majority population respondents considered that the police were respectful towards them during their last police stop, compared to 42% of North African respondents and 55% of Turkish respondents. •Minority groups who perceive they were stopped by the police on the basis of their ethnic or immigrant background have a lower level of trust in the police than minorities who were stopped and considered it to be unrelated to their minority background. Every second minority victim of assault, threat or serious harassment said they did not report these incidents to the police because they were not confident the police would do anything about them. Details: Vienna: FRA, 2010. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Data in Focus Report 04: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS-police.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS-police.pdf Shelf Number: 120863 Keywords: DiscriminationMinoritiesPolice MisconductPolice-Community RelationsPolicing (Europe) |
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. European Union Committee Title: Eu Police and Criminal Justice Measures: The UK's 2014 Opt-out Decision Summary: Under Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties, the Government must decide whether or not the UK should continue to be bound by around 130 EU police and criminal justice (PCJ) measures which were adopted before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in 2009, or whether it should exercise its right to opt out of them all. That decision must be made at the latest by 31 May 2014. If the Government do not opt out, on 1 December 2014 these measures will become subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the enforcement powers of the European Commission. If the Government do exercise the opt-out, the PCJ measures will cease to apply to the UK on 1 December 2014. The CJEU’s jurisdiction and the Commission’s enforcement powers will then apply in relation to the measures for all the Member States except the UK. The UK may later rejoin any of the measures subject to conditions set out in the Protocol. On 15 October 2012, the Home Secretary said the Government’s “current thinking” was that the UK should opt out of all the pre-Lisbon measures and negotiate to rejoin individual measures where that is in the national interest. Shortly after this announcement we commenced our inquiry into the decision that needs to be taken by the Government. The Government have undertaken to consult both Houses of Parliament before it reaches a final decision, and this report is intended to support that process. The decision on the opt-out is one of great significance, with far-reaching implications not only for the UK but also for the other Member States and the EU as a whole. Cross-border cooperation on policing and criminal justice matters is an essential element in tackling security threats such as terrorism and organised crime in the twenty-first century. In the course of taking evidence from a wide range of witnesses, we found that supporters of the opt-out have several areas of concern, including: The risks associated with extending the jurisdiction of the CJEU in relation to the pre-Lisbon PCJ measures to include the UK, including the risk of “judicial activism” and the potential for undermining the UK’s common law systems; The loss of national control over areas of police and criminal justice policy; Many of the PCJ measures are of little use or are defunct; Many of the areas of cooperation could be achieved by non-legislative means or through alternative arrangements; They also wish the UK to use the opt-out to promote the reform of certain measures, in particular the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Opponents of the opt-out, on the other hand, considered that: The pre-Lisbon measures are in the UK’s national interest and some are vital to our internal security; The measures are beneficial to UK citizens who may become the victims of crime or are suspected of committing a crime in another Member State and also in permitting the rapid extradition of criminals from other Member States who have come to the UK; The CJEU’s jurisdiction would provide the benefits of legal clarity and the stronger and more consistent application of EU measures across the EU; There is no risk to the UK’s common law systems and there has been no evidence of any harm caused to those systems from any PCJ measures or judgments; Withdrawing from some of those PCJ measures would result in the UK having to rely upon less effective means of cooperation; The UK would lose influence over existing and future EU police and criminal justice policies and agencies. We conclude that the concerns of proponents of opting out, in particular as regards the role of the CJEU, were not supported by the evidence we received and did not provide a convincing reason for exercising the opt-out. We have failed to identify any significant, objective, justification for avoiding the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the pre-Lisbon PCJ measures in the UK and note that the Government appeared to share that view in respect of the number of post-Lisbon PCJ measures to which they have opted in. Indeed, we believe that the CJEU has an important role to play, alongside Member States’ domestic courts, in safeguarding the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law. It would be theoretically possible for the UK to continue cooperating with other Member States through alternative arrangements, but we found that these would raise legal complications, and result in more cumbersome, expensive and less effective procedures, thus weakening the hand of the UK’s police and law enforcement authorities. The negotiation of any new arrangements would also be a time-consuming and uncertain process. The most effective way for the UK to cooperate with other Member States is to remain engaged in the existing EU measures in this area. The European Arrest Warrant is the single most important of the measures which are subject to the opt-out decision. In some cases, the operation of the EAW has resulted in serious injustices, but these arose from the consequences of extradition, including long periods of pre-trial detention in poor prison conditions, which could occur under any alternative system of extradition. Relying upon alternative extradition arrangements is highly unlikely to address the criticisms directed at the EAW and would inevitably render the extradition process more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety. The best way to achieve improvements in the operation of the EAW is through negotiations with the other Member States, the use of existing provisions in national law, informal judicial cooperation, the development of EU jurisprudence and the immediate implementation of flanking EU measures such as the European Supervision Order. If the opt-out is exercised, the UK may seek to rejoin individual PCJ measures but this process would not necessarily be automatic or straightforward. Witnesses who opposed exercising the opt-out were concerned that the procedures for rejoining measures are uncertain and depend on the decisions of the Commission and the other Member States; about timing (whether it would be practicable to rejoin measures without any hiatus in their application); and about cost (the potential to incur financial consequences assessed by the Commission, and sunk costs, for example, substantial multi-million pound contributions to the development of second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) if the UK did not rejoin that system). Watertight transitional arrangements would have to be agreed, and there is a clear risk that gaps and legal uncertainties would arise. We are unable to form a firm view on the merits and adequacy of any list of measures that the Government might seek to rejoin, were the opt-out to be exercised, since they have not provided us with any list of measures they might seek to rejoin, nor even a summary of the reactions of the other Member States to the Government’s intention to exercise the opt-out, which may be critical in assessing the potential success or otherwise of the UK’s negotiations to rejoin particular measures. A proper assessment by Parliament of whether or not the optout should be exercised is necessarily linked with the measures which the Government wish (or are able) to rejoin. In light of the evidence we have received, including a preponderant view among our witnesses from the legal, law enforcement and prosecutorial professions, we conclude that the Government have not made a convincing case for exercising the opt-out and that opting out would have significant adverse negative repercussions for the internal security of the UK and the administration of criminal justice in the UK, as well as reducing its influence over this area of EU policy. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2013. 151p. Source: Internet Resource: HP Paper 159: accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/159/159.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/159/159.pdf Shelf Number: 128591 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy (U.K.)Criminal Justice SystemsPolicing (Europe) |
Author: CIRCA Group Europe Limited Title: Reserve Police Forces. An investigation into roles, responsibilities, training and deployment; and Danish Police Servivce, best practice alternative Summary: The purpose of the research was twofold: - To identify how many of the original EU-15 countries have a part-time reserve police force - To explore at greater depth a number of aspects of selected part-time reserve police forces. The methodology covered the following phases: a survey of the original EU-15 member states to identify which states had a reserve police force and a telephone survey of five countries - Canada, Finland, New South Wales (Australia), the Netherlands and Scotland. A 'reserve police force' in the context of this report is defined as a part-time police force who's members have other full-time occupations and whose duties are usually limited to 8 hours or 4 hours duty per week. They are known as 'Special Constables' in the UK, Australia and Canada. In the European Union of 15 members, 12 countries have no reserve police force. The following countries do have a reserve police force: - UK - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - The Netherlands - Germany The other 12 of EU-15 Member States do not have a reserve police force. They are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Luxemburg, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Details: Dublin: CIRCA Group Europe, 2006. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2015 at: http://www.gra.cc/Circa_Garda_Reserve_Report-4-1-.pdf Year: 2006 Country: International URL: http://www.gra.cc/Circa_Garda_Reserve_Report-4-1-.pdf Shelf Number: 134669 Keywords: Police AgenciesPolicing (Europe)Special ConstablesVolunteers |
Author: Composite Project Title: Policing Opportunities and Threats Summary: This report's aim is twofold: (1) to develop an overall picture of the policing environment, with an extra emphasis on the role of external parties, in ten European countries; and (2) to engage in a cross-country comparison. This report is largely based on 441 interviews with police officers and knowledgeable external stakeholders (such as journalists, trade union representatives, members of the public prosecution, mayors, et cetera) who have been interviewed in the period between January and May 2011 in ten countries: Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Republic of Macedonia, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Although this report cannot but offer a snapshot in time, as all cross-section environmental analyses do by definition, it provides an interesting diagnosis of current and future trends in European policing from the perspective of 441 representatives of external and internal parties active in the European policing field of 2011. Details: Composite Project (Comparative Police Studies in the EU), 2011. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2015 at: http://www.composite-project.eu/tl_files/fM_k0005/download/Brochure%20WP1.2[1].pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www.composite-project.eu/tl_files/fM_k0005/download/Brochure%20WP1.2[1].pdf Shelf Number: 135387 Keywords: Police Policies and PracticesPolicing (Europe) |