Boer, Monica den, ‘Intelligence Exchange and the Control of Organised Crime: From Europeanisationvia Centralisation to Dehydration?’, in Anderson & Apap (eds.), pp. 151-163.Main motto of the article:
“The EU law enforcement co-operation represents a pattern
of centralisationrather than decentralization
at the level of the member states. Problem is that the national and regional intelligence officers tend to keep their intelligence and not supply it to the centre. Thus Europol should build thrust by giving them feedback, whenever their intelligence has been used to the benefit of transnational criminal coordination by Europol”.
within the era of modern policing and a
of international police co-operation, specially as regard of control of organized crime and terrorism.-Can be defined as a
collection of investigation techniques
, which allows the pro-active and preventivesearch for cues, eventually culminating in a synthesized picture of a crime to be committed.-As such, ‘intelligence’ can be contrasted with reactive or repressive information-gathering, which is usually performed
a crime has already been perpetrated.
The main thesis of this article
-the intelligence-sharing model within the EU tends to favor
.-efficacy of centralised coordination suffers from the
lack of trust
in national and supranational agents.-
centralisation needs to be complemented by various forms of decentralization
inorder to restore trust and to keep sensitive intelligence close to its source.
Reinforcing Centralisation: The Paradox of Europeanisation
-On the one hand, EU regulatory framework in the field of JHA may trigger a form of organizationalconvergence between the MS; on the other hand, Europeanisation may be used domestically as an argumentto support administrative revision.-Regulatory instruments adopted by the JHA Council may be expected to propel
within thenational administrations.
establishment of a common mechanism for the collection andanalysis of information with a view to providing
with comparable date for the development of anannual Organised Crime Situation Report.
Action Plan to Combat Organised Crime, which formulates 30recommendations that should be implemented in accordance with various timetables.-These examples illustrate the
efforts made at EU level to centralise and harmonise
anti-organise crime bodies
within the national police organizations
(other examples of directives p 154-155).-Next to these 3
Pillar instruments, relevant initiatives also evolve from communitarian co-operation:1.1989 creation of the Anti-Fraud Unit of the European Commission –
) –> propelled organizational changes on national level.2.
1991 EC Money Laundering Directive
– obliged the member states to create financial intelligencestructures that collect and analyze information from financial institutions.-
Schengen Implementing Agreement
– major impact on police and judicial cooperation in Europe,although it was not designed with the purpose of controlling international organised crime: creation of the National Schengen Information Systems (NSIS) caused the creation of
national SIRENE bureaux.
centralisation tendencies are often paralleled by decentralisation patterns