CM/AS(2006)Rec1648 finalsupp 7 April 2006
Consequences of European Union enlargement for freedom of movement between Council of Europe member states
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1648 (2004)
(Supplementary reply adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 April 2006 at the 961st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
1. The Committee of Ministers adopted a reply to Assembly Recommendation 1648 (2004) on the consequences of European Union enlargement for freedom of movement between Council of Europe member states1 at the 888th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, in which it informed the Assembly of the terms of reference in relation to the freedom of movement given to the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ)2 and about the invitation to the CDCJ to give an opinion on the recommendation. The Committee of Ministers underlined in its reply that it would not fail to inform the Assembly of the outcome of the work thus undertaken. Furthermore, at the 890th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies,3 the Committee of Ministers invited also the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) to give an opinion on the recommendation.
2. The Committee of Ministers has now received these opinions, which are contained in Appendices 1 and 2 to this reply. It refers to these opinions for a detailed reply to the various recommendations made by the Assembly and notes that the CDCJ report on “Good practices relating to the movement of persons between the Council of Europe member states”4 and its accompanying CDCJ Bureau “message” to the Committee of Ministers provided important background information for the CDCJ opinion.
3. As a general comment the Committee of Ministers notes that, taking into account the Community competence in visa policy matters, any Council of Europe action in this field is only possible in close co-operation with the European Union and with due regard to its competence. The Committee of Ministers also notes that the CDCJ has found that the 1957 European Agreement on Regulations Governing the Movement of Persons between Member States of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 25), the most relevant Council of Europe treaty from the point of view of entry and short-term stay, is outdated and that its revision is not feasible in the present circumstances.
4. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned CDCJ report provides a comprehensive comparative overview of various multilateral, bilateral and unilateral measures taken by member states to facilitate the movement of persons. The report has been made public and member states have been invited to disseminate it to their competent authorities. It has also been transmitted for information to the European Union institutions. The Committee of Ministers is presently considering the idea of regularly updating the report in accordance with the Third Summit Action Plan where the Council of Europe undertook, in co-operation with the European Union, “…to continue to promote the exchange of good practices as far as free movement of persons is concerned, with a view to further improving contacts and exchanges between Europeans throughout the continent”.
5. In its opinion on the Assembly’s recommendation, the CDPC refers to comments made by its Committee of Experts on Transnational Criminal Justice (PC-TJ), to which it had been referred for consideration. The PC-TJ is responsible for studying part of the “New Start” report5 (the chapter entitled “Renewal”), which a committee of experts drew up in 2002, and for submitting concrete proposals to the CDPC, in particular with regard to issues concerning individual rights and freedoms in transnational criminal proceedings. As can been seen from the appended opinion, some aspects of the Committee’s work are directly linked to Recommendation 1648 (2004): judicial and police co-operation in improving security and public order.
6. The Committee of Ministers also refers to the work by the Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions in the Penal Field (PC-OC), which examines any difficulties in implementing the Council’s criminal law conventions. The PC-OC has also discussed what action is needed on the two parts of the “New Start” report for which the PC-TJ is not responsible, those concerning the visibility and consistency of Council of Europe standards. Both committees will submit their final reports and proposals to the CDPC in time for its next session (April 2006).
7. The Committee of Ministers endorses the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation 8.ii to member states that they should ratify and implement without delay the conventions, agreements and other treaties listed6 in the recommendation. It underlines that ratification and implementation of the co-operation arrangements in these instruments are vital to the fight against crime. The Committee of Ministers finally recalls that at their 26th conference in Helsinki (7-8 April 2005), the European Ministers of Justice called on member states to ratify and implement these instruments.
Appendix 1 to the supplementary reply
Opinion of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ)
The CDCJ prepared the present opinion in accordance with Decision No. CM/863/05052004 of the Committee of Ministers adopted at the 883rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 5 May 2004. The opinion benefited from the contribution of the Working Party CDCJ-GT-MOV, set up by the CDCJ to prepare the draft report on “Good practices relating to the movement of persons between the Council of Europe member states” (hereinafter referred to as the “report”). This report and its accompanying CDCJ Bureau “message” to the Committee of Ministers provided important background information for the present opinion. The Committee of Ministers took note of the report at the 911th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 12 January 2005 and authorised its publication at the 920th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 23 March 2005.
In addition, the Secretariats of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR), the Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) (T-PD) and the Group of Specialists on Identity Documents and terrorism (TER-S-IT) were consulted with respect to the provisions of the recommendation falling within their respective scope of competence.
It should be noted that the present document only deals with recommendations addressed to the member states (point 8 of the recommendation), the States Parties to the 1990 Schengen Convention (point 9 of the recommendation) and to the Committee of Ministers (point 11 of the recommendation) that fall within the CDCJ mandate.7
8. The Assembly recommends that member states:
iii. introduce, on the basis of reciprocity, provisions enabling the nationals of Council of Europe member states who hold diplomatic or service passports to make official journeys without a visa;
The CDCJ takes note of the findings of the report regarding the frequent practice of member states to exempt the holders of diplomatic and other official passports of certain other Council of Europe member states from short-stay visa requirements. The CDCJ also notes that Schengen states9 are under an obligation not to conclude, without prior agreement with the other Schengen states, new agreements in the area of removing visa requirements for holders of diplomatic, official or service passports.
iv. in relation to those member states which are also members of the European Union (including those which may accede in May 2004), adopt liberal measures with respect to citizens of other Council of Europe member states in those areas of immigration policy not subject to European Union jurisdiction, particularly so as to simplify formalities for obtaining visas and facilitate border-crossing;
v. in relation to those member states which are not members of the European Union, ensure that they take action to facilitate positive developments in areas of reciprocity, such as the adoption of minimal visa fees and the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral readmission agreements;
The CDCJ takes note of the findings of the report concerning various simplifications of procedures for obtaining visa and border-crossing and short-term stay applied by the member states. The CDCJ takes note, in particular, of the recent bilateral agreements concluded between several EU member states adhering to the Schengen Acquis and several non-EU member states that simplify the above-mentioned procedures. These simplifications include reciprocal issue of multiple entry visas valid for one year or more, reduced or abolished visa fees, accelerated visa application processing procedures as well as simplified requirements with respect to supporting documents. Such simplified procedures apply to several categories of persons who travel frequently, such as officials, drivers, business people etc., as well as to persons in need of more favourable treatment for humanitarian reasons, such as senior people.
vi. facilitate the crossing of borders by setting up at border checkpoints special corridors reserved for the nationals of Council of Europe member states;
The CDCJ notes that the existing border crossing checkpoints reserved for EU nationals have been introduced with the view to reduce border crossing delays for EU nationals who are generally subject only to identity checks while these checks can be more extensive and time consuming in the case of non-EU nationals.10 The existence of these separate checkpoints has therefore a practical explanation as a consequence of the freedom of movement achieved within the EU, which does not at present exist among all the Council of Europe member states. Establishing special checkpoints reserved for the nationals of Council of Europe member states is not therefore, in practical terms, feasible in the current situation.
viii. make good use of their authority to issue long-term national visas for citizens of Council of Europe member states;
The CDCJ notes that “long-stay” visas11 were not dealt with in the report that focused on the abolition or simplification of procedures concerning “short-stay” visas. The CDCJ considered that short-stay visas were the most important with respect to cross-border contacts between persons and private and business travel. As far as the validity of short-stay visas is concerned, the CDCJ notes the findings of the report concerning, in particular, the provisions of the above-mentioned agreements on simplification of visa procedures. These agreements provide for issue of multiple entry short-stay visas valid for one year or more to such categories of persons as researchers, teachers, students, participants in youth exchange activities, artists, businessmen, officials, persons having family ties in the other country concerned, etc. The CDCJ considers the issuing, to such frequent travellers, of multiple entry short-stay visas with an extended validity period as a “good practice”.
9. The Assembly also recommends that States Party to the 1990 Schengen Convention:
i. expand their consular services in other Council of Europe member states so as to ensure that visas are issued quickly, efficiently and conveniently and in keeping with human dignity. In this respect, an administrative procedure for control of the processing of visa applications should be instituted and systematised in all consulates;
The CDCJ takes note of the findings of the report concerning the existence in several member states of express rules facilitating transparency – access to legal acts regulating the issue of visas and to information about the practical procedures followed by consular establishments. The CDCJ is of the opinion that such rules should be considered as a “good practice” for all Council of Europe member states and that everyone should have access to such information as a matter of right.
ii. introduce a presumption regarding visas whereby anyone who makes an application for a visa should benefit from the presumption that it will be issued. Any refusal should be based on substantiated reasons meeting specific criteria which would withstand a transparency;
The CDCJ takes note of the findings of the report concerning the practices of many member states, which have introduced in their visa rules the notion of “persons considered to be acting in bona fide” and applying to such persons a more favourable treatment. It also notes that certain member states apply the principle of “proportionality” concerning the supporting documents that can be required from visa applicants. Finally, the CDCJ draws attention to the fact that many, albeit not all, Council of Europe member states have express provisions on authorities’ obligations to provide reasons for visa refusals as well as information on the appeal mechanisms available.
iii. increase the number of, and improve the facilities at, border crossings with non-European Union member neighbouring states, in particular through the use of advanced electronic technology;
Even though the issues of border-crossing facilities were not directly tackled in the above-mentioned report, the CDCJ notes that the European Commission’s recent Proposal for Regulation12 concerning “local border traffic” envisages, inter alia, the possibility of increasing the number of border-crossing points for the benefit of border area residents by way of bilateral agreements between the neighbouring countries concerned. The CDCJ welcomes such an initiative considering that an increased number of border-crossing points are especially important in the case of local border traffic. As to new information technology, the CDCJ notes that its application is an important means to accelerate processing of visa applications and border-crossing checks.
iv. take steps to make more widely known to the general public the procedure enabling individuals to acquaint themselves with the information held concerning them in the Schengen Information System (SIS) and, if necessary, to have any inaccurate information rectified.
The CDCJ notes that the right to access and rectification of personal data is a fundamental right of any data subject according to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108). The right of access to data held in information systems such as the Schengen Information System has been discussed in the report on the Impact of Data Protection Principles on Judicial Data in Criminal Matters including in the framework of Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters , (paragraphs 45 – 47 on the “Right of Access”) prepared by the Project Group on Data Protection (CJ-PD) and adopted by the CDCJ in 2002. This report takes note of the provisions of Article 109 of the Schengen Convention13 concerning the right of persons to have access to data entered in the Schengen Information System. The conclusion of the report on this issue is the following: “If a data subject requests access with regard to data about him/her that have been communicated by judicial authorities of another country, the authorities of the originating country should be given the opportunity to state their point of view before the request is granted”. It corresponds to the provisions of the above-mentioned article of the Schengen Convention.
11. Finally, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. undertake a comprehensive study – involving the committees established under relevant Council of Europe treaties, representatives of the European Union and the Assembly – into how existing Council of Europe treaties concerning free movement of persons, criminal justice and public order may be more widely ratified, implemented, co-ordinated and (if necessary) amended or completed, including through the preparation, signature and implementation of a new European convention, so as to establish a comprehensive legal framework within which the greatest possible degree of freedom of movement of persons may be established throughout Europe;
The CDCJ notes that the recommendation lists the following Council of Europe treaties as pertaining to movement of persons:
- 1955 European Convention on Establishment (ETS No. 19);
- 1957 European Agreement on Regulations Governing the Movement of Persons between Member States of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 25);
- 1977 European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (ETS No. 93);
- 1985 European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (ETS No. 106).
In this regard, the CDCJ notes that Conventions ETS No. 19 and ETS No. 93 deal with a broad spectrum of issues related to residence of non-nationals after they have been granted entry to the territory of the contracting state concerned (such as access to employment, right to exercise a liberal profession, family reunion, etc.). As to the Convention ETS No. 106, it proposes to the contracting states a set of model inter-state agreements and agreements between the local authorities from different contracting states on various issues of economic and social co-operation without explicitly touching upon the issue of movement of persons in border areas.
Accordingly, the CDCJ considers that the 1957 European Agreement on Regulations Governing the Movement of Persons between Member States of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 25) is the most relevant Council of Europe treaty from the point of view of entry and short-term stay. This treaty aims at exempting the nationals of member states from short-stay visa requirements when travelling to other member states. The applicability of this Agreement has been extensively discussed in the above-mentioned CDCJ report on “Good Practices”. On the basis of this report, the CDCJ acknowledges that the Agreement is outdated and that its revision is not feasible in the present circumstances.
As to other possible Council of Europe activities in the area of movement of persons, the CDCJ notes that the report on “Good Practices”, prepared by the Working Party CDCJ-GT-MOV in consultation with all the CDCJ delegations in 2004, provides a comprehensive comparative overview of various multilateral, bilateral and unilateral measures of the member states facilitating the movement of persons. According to the Committee of Ministers’ decision adopted at the 920th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 23 March 2005, this report has been published on the Internet and will be transmitted for information to the European Union institutions. In addition, the member states have been invited to disseminate it to their competent authorities. At the same time, the Committee of Ministers noted that the idea of regularly updating the report, which was one of the follow-up options proposed by the CDCJ, had received widespread support among the member states. However, it decided to return to the question of the follow-up activity after the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe on 16 and 17 May 2005. Should the Committee of Ministers so decide, the CDCJ is ready to continue the work in the area of movement of persons.
ii. establish principles for the standardisation of travel documents of Council of Europe member states, so as to provide safeguards against forgery and fraudulent use, and thus facilitate the liberalisation of visa regimes and immigration policies;
The CDCJ notes that standardisation of travel documents is already undertaken by other international organisations and the European Union. In this situation, the CDCJ considers that the Council of Europe should rather contribute to the development of identity documents at the European level in its traditional areas of competence. These areas are, firstly, personal data protection concerning “smart cards” and in the collection of biometric data that are being progressively introduced in identity documents, and, secondly, issues concerning identity documents that are relevant for the fight against terrorism.
Concerning personal data protection, the CDCJ wishes to draw attention to the Guiding principles for the Protection of Personal Data with regard to smart cards , which it adopted at its 79th plenary meeting in 2004. This text deals with the principles of data protection which should be taken into account when using smart cards, including fair and legal processing of the data, security of the system and data of a sensitive nature.
As to biometric data, a progress report on the application of the principles of the data protection Convention to the collection and processing of biometric data was adopted by the T-PD in February 2005. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the OECD have recently set up a working group to establish guidelines for the inclusion of biometric data in travel documents. The T-PD will be participating in this work as an observer.
As to the work underway concerning identity documents and terrorism, the CDCJ draws attention to Recommendation Rec(2005)7 on identity and travel documents and the fight against terrorism, prepared by the Group of Specialists on Identity Documents and terrorism (TER-S-IT) and adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2005. It contains provisions concerning the security of identity and travel documents, proof of identity, birth certificates and international co-operation in this context. It underlines, in particular, the usefulness of standardisation of the contents and format of travel documents according to the standards adopted by the ICAO, as well as the usefulness of a common format and minimum security standards concerning passports that have been adopted by the European Union.
iii. begin efforts to harmonise, under the auspices of the Council of Europe, and in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1624 (2003) on a common policy on migration and asylum, Council of Europe member states’ legislation and practice relating to this subject.
The CDCJ notes that Recommendation 1648 (2004) was adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly prior to the adoption of the reply of the Committee of Ministers with respect to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1624 (2003) on a common policy on migration and asylum. In this reply, adopted at the 888th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 16 June 2004, the Committee of Ministers considered the drawing up of a model for a Council of Europe common policy on migration and asylum to be inadvisable, in view of the very specific situation of refugees.
In its reply the Committee of Ministers stated that:
“…The core rights and procedural safeguards for both asylum seekers and migrants are already reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights and its relevant case law. Many guarantees mentioned in the recommendation have already been thoroughly dealt with and will continue to be assured by the European Court of Human Rights.
4. There is a distinction between refugees and migrants. Having regard to the very specific situation of the refugees, a common model as proposed might lower the standards for their protection. In order to provide them with better protection, the Committee of Ministers has adopted two European agreements and a number of recommendations that provide member states with common standards in the field of refugee protection. The Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on the Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR) has taken the initiative to reinforce the follow up to these recommendations. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) continues to follow up the fair procedures mentioned in paragraph 9 of the recommendation in its country-specific reports. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights also pays much attention to these problems.
5. Asylum policy is a humanitarian policy and should not be confused with an orderly migration management.
6. However, the harmonisation of the policies in the field of migration will contribute to the achievement of greater unity among member states of the Council of Europe. It should also be recalled that the Council of Europe recommendations in the field of migration are traditionally taken into consideration by the European Commission in its process of drafting directives on similar subjects. The Migration Management Strategy adopted by the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) provides a framework for a co-ordinated action, from a human rights and human dignity perspective. The recently established Political Platform constitutes a solid basis for harmonising national approaches to migration and the development of synergies with the EU policies under the Common Asylum and Migration Policy.”
Appendix 2 to the supplementary reply
Opinion of the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)
At its meeting on 15 and 16 November 2004, the European Committee for Crime Problems (CDPC) Bureau took note of Recommendation 1648 (2004) and agreed that it should be forwarded to the Committee of Experts on Transnational Criminal Justice (PC-TJ) for consideration. The PC-TJ reply, set out below, was adopted by the Bureau of the CDPC at its meeting of 12 to 14 October 2005, further to a written consultation of all delegations.
1. The PC-TJ considered this recommendation at its 2nd meeting (31 January to 2 February 2005) with a view to adopting an interim report to the CDPC. It did likewise at its 3rd and final meeting on 12 and 13 December 2005, when it discussed the final report to be submitted to the CDPC for its next session (April 2006).
2. The PC-TJ is responsible for studying part of the “New Start” report (the chapter entitled “Renewal”), which a committee of experts drew up in 2002, and submitting concrete proposals to the CDPC, in particular with regard to issues concerning individual rights and freedoms in transnational criminal proceedings.
3. Some aspects of the PC-TJ’s work are directly linked to Recommendation 1648 (2004): judicial and police co-operation in improving security and public order. The PC-TJ believes that the response to the crime problem, like crime itself, needs to be transnational. Its aim is therefore to help establish a judicial area satisfying common standards – in other words, an effective European transnational judicial system that respects human rights and individual freedoms.
4. To that end the Committee takes particular account of developments which facilitate direct co-operation between the authorities of different countries and help to speed up procedure – for example, video-conferencing, electronic mail and teleconferencing. These modern co-operation methods were already referred to in the 2nd Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (ETS No. 182). The Committee also takes an interest in European Union developments, in particular those concerning mutual recognition of judicial decisions (such as the European arrest warrant).
5. The PC-TJ pays special attention to the safeguards protecting the different parties to transnational criminal proceedings. For example it concerns itself with the rights and treatment of persons against whom extradition proceedings have been initiated. It also looks at the rights of, and guarantees afforded to, the accused, victims and witnesses in proceedings involving international co-operation. It considers the different ways of distributing and assigning powers and responsibilities in transnational cases so as to make sure that criminals are effectively prosecuted, the rights of victims respected and the accused protected by the appropriate safeguards. It will suggest specific progress that could be made in these fields.
6. The PC-TJ cannot but endorse the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation (8.ii) to member states that they should “in so far as they have not already done so, ratify and implement without delay the conventions, agreements and other treaties listed”14 [in the recommendation]. Ratification and implementation of the co-operation arrangements in these instruments are vital to the fight against crime. The PC-TJ notes that, at their 26th conference in Helsinki (7-8 April 2005), the European Ministers of Justice also called on member states to ratify and implement these instruments (see, in particular, the 3rd resolution, on combating terrorism).
7. The PC-TJ is also aware of the work by the Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions in the Penal Field (PC-OC), which examines any difficulties in implementing the Council’s criminal law conventions. It discusses appropriate solutions and thus assists implementation. The PC-OC has also discussed what action is needed on the two parts of the “New Start” report for which the PC-TJ is not responsible, those concerning the visibility and consistency of Council of Europe standards.
8. The PC-TJ will forward its final report and its proposals to the CDPC in time for its next session (April 2006). The same apparently applies to the parts of the “New Start” report being dealt with by the PC-OC.
9. The PC-TJ notes the importance of the Council of Europe programmes of assistance to its member states for improving judicial and police anti-crime co-operation. It notes and welcomes in particular the Organisation’s efforts to implement the CARDS-Justice and CARDS-Police programmes15 in the Balkan countries and the programme on judicial co-operation in criminal matters in Ukraine, which is jointly funded by the Council of Europe and the European Commission.
1 16 June 2004, item 10.7, document CM/AS(2004)Rec1648 final.
2 At the 883rd meeting, 5 May 2004, item 10.4.
3 30 June 2004, item 10.3a.
4 The Committee of Ministers took note of the report at the 911th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 12 January 2005 and authorised its publication at the 920th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 23 March 2005.
5 The "New Start” report was adopted by the CDPC in 2002. It suggests ways to develop a European area of shared justice, based on the application of the European conventions in the criminal field, while respecting the individual rights and freedoms. In 2002 the Committee of Ministers entrusted two committees, the PC-OC and the PC-TJ, with examining different aspects of the report and with making follow-up suggestions. Both committees will submit their suggestions to the CDPC for its plenary session (April 2006), and, as a result, the PC-TJ, at its meeting in December 2005, fulfilled its terms of reference.
6 The conventions on extradition (ETS Nos. 024, 086 and 098), mutual assistance in criminal matters (ETS Nos. 027, 099 and 182), the international validity of criminal judgments (ETS No. 070) and terrorism (ETS Nos. 090 and 190), the two criminal and civil law conventions on corruption (ETS Nos. 173 and 174) and the convention on money laundering (ETS No. 141).
7 It should be noted that the CDPC has also been invited to comment on the present recommendation according to the Committee of Ministers’ decision of 30 June 2004.
8 The original text of the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation is reproduced in the present document in bold italics.
9 Annex 2 to the Common Consular Instructions on Visas for the Diplomatic Missions and Consular Posts, Official Journal of 16.12.2002 C 313.
10 See, for example, Executive Committee Decision of 22 December 1994 introducing and applying the Schengen arrangements in airports and aerodromes, Official Journal No. L 239, 22/09/2000.
11 Article 18 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 concerning “Long-stay visas” stipulates that “Visas for stays exceeding three months shall be national visas issued by one of the Contracting Parties in accordance with its national law”.
12 Proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of a regime of local border traffic at the external land borders of the member states COM(2003)502 final. This proposal is, however, at present being reconsidered because of the change in the legal basis and procedures for its adoption (end of the transitional period foreseen in Article 67 of the Treaty establishing the European Community) and in the light of the discussions that have already taken place on this proposal within the Council of the European Union.
13 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the governments of the states of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders of 19 June 1990.
14 The conventions on extradition (ETS Nos. 024, 086 and 098), mutual assistance in criminal matters (ETS Nos. 027, 099 and 182), the international validity of criminal judgments (ETS No. 070) and terrorism (ETS Nos. 090 and 190), the two criminal and civil law conventions on corruption (ETS Nos. 173 and 174) and the convention on money laundering (ETS No. 141).
15 These CARDS programmes implemented by the Council of Europe are co-financed by the Council and the European Commission.
The abbreviation “CARDS” stands for Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Democratisation and Stability. It is a programme of assistance of the European Commission.