Ettepanek - SEC(2026) 570, SWD(2026) 570, SWD(2026) 571, SWD(2026) 572, SWD(2026) 573, COM(2026) 570

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 24.6.2026

COM(2026) 570 final

2026/0164 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and

repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727

{SEC(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 571 final} -

{SWD(2026) 572 final} - {SWD(2026) 573 final}

EN 1 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

This proposal for a new Eurojust Regulation responds to the evolving challenges posed by

serious and organised cross-border crime in the European Union. Eurojust was set up under

Council Decision 2002/187/JHA1 as an intergovernmental body and was later transformed

into an EU agency under Regulation (EU) 2018/17272. Ever since, Eurojust has facilitated

coordination and cooperation between national investigative and prosecutorial authorities. It

has significantly contributed to building mutual trust and bridging the EU's wide variety of

legal systems and traditions. By rapidly solving legal problems, and identifying competent

authorities in other countries, Eurojust has facilitated the execution of requests for cooperation

and mutual recognition. Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)

explicitly provides that Eurojust's mission is to support and strenghten coordination and

cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious

crime affecting two or more Member States or requiring a prosecution on common bases. It is

therefore important to ensure that Eurojust is used in the best possible way and to remove any

obstacles that prevent it from functioning efficiently.

The 2025 evaluation of Eurojust3, published on 2 July 2025, identified significant structural

and operational constraints that impede its ability to fully realise its potential. According to

the evaluation, these constraints include inefficiencies in internal governance, inconsistencies

in the application of the Regulation across Member States, and limitations on cooperation

with EU partners and third countries.

The primary objective of this proposal is to address the shortcomings identified by the 2025

evaluation and to modernise the Agency's legal framework in line with the Lisbon Treaty and

the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies4. This revision aims to improve

Eurojust’s internal functioning, governance, and operational performance, while strengthening

its cooperation with EU partners and third countries, including EU candidate countries and

potential candidates. In addition, the proposal seeks to expand Eurojust’s mandate to cover

emerging crime areas such as cybercrime, gender-based violence, and violations of EU

restrictive measures, including where they present a hybrid dimension, and to reinforce its

analytical and proactive capabilities.

The ProtectEU Strategy Internal Security Strategy, Protect EU Agenda to prevent and counter

terrorism and the EU Roadmap to Fight Drug Trafficking and Organised Crime highlight

Eurojust’s critical role in cross-border criminal justice cooperation, and acknowledge the need

to further strengthen its operational role in combating organised crime, terrorism and evolving

cross-border threats.

The initiative is set out in the 2026 Commission Work Programme5, which prioritises the

revision of Eurojust’s legal framework to uphold EU values and protect democracy, together

1 OJ L 063, 6.3.2002, p. 1. 2 OJ L 295 21.11.2018, p. 138. 3 SWD(2025) 182 final. 4 Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on

decentralised agencies. 5 2026 Commission work programme and annexes, 21 October 2025.

EN 2 EN

and in complementarity with the revisions of the Europol Regulation, the European

Investigation Order (EIO) Directive and the European Union Data Protection Regulation

(EUDPR).

The proposal also seeks to address the recommendations of the High-Level Forum on the

Future of EU Criminal Justice6, which underscored the need for a more cohesive criminal

justice architecture, and for Eurojust to act as a central hub for judicial cooperation in relation

to EU justice and security more widely.

This proposal takes all these elements into consideration and provides a single and renewed

legal framework for Eurojust. While maintaining the management and operation elements that

have proven efficient, it modernises Eurojust's legal framework and streamlines its

functioning and structure in line with the requirements of the Common Approach on

decentralised agencies.

• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The present package of criminal justice initiatives pursues a coherent and complementary

objective: strengthening the Union's capacity to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute

serious cross-border crime in an increasingly complex security environment. By modernising

the legal frameworks governing cooperation between law enforcement, judicial and other

relevant authorities, the package seeks to reinforce the effectiveness, coherence and

interoperability of the Union's internal security architecture.

The proposed revisions of the Europol and Eurojust Regulations constitute the core of this

effort. Europol and Eurojust perform distinct yet complementary functions within the Area of

Freedom, Security and Justice: while Europol supports the prevention, detection and

investigation of criminal activities, Eurojust facilitates judicial cooperation and ensures

effective prosecutorial and judicial follow-up. The package therefore aims to strengthen

cooperation and complementarity between the two agencies, as well as with other relevant

Union actors in the Justice and Home Affairs and Anti-Fraud Architecture areas, with a view

to ensuring a seamless continuum between law enforcement action and judicial follow-up

across all stages of the criminal justice chain.

In this context, the amendments to the European Investigation Order framework and to the

data protection rules applicable in the Justice and Home Affairs domain, further contribute to

this objective by facilitating effective cross-border cooperation, improving the conditions for

information exchange and ensuring a coherent legal framework adapted to operational

realities and technological developments. Taken together, the measures proposed in this

package will enhance the Union’s ability to respond to evolving security threats while fully

respecting fundamental rights, the rule of law and the division of responsibilities between the

different actors involved.

Furthermore, the proposal for the revision of the Eurojust Regulation is fully consistent with

other the existing policy provisions in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It

aligns with Article 85 TFEU, which provides Eurojust with the mandate to support cross-

border judicial cooperation, and complements recent legislative developments such as the e-

evidence framework (Regulation (EU) 2023/1543) and the Anti-Money Laundering Package

(Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 and Regulation 2024/1620). The proposal also supports

implementation of the interoperability of EU information systems (Regulation (EU)

6 Report of the High-Level Forum on the Future of EU Criminal Justice, February-December 2025.

EN 3 EN

2019/818), which necessitates closer cooperation between Eurojust, Europol and other Justice

and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies.

Previous changes to the Eurojust Regulation made targeted, thematic amendments: Regulation

(EU) 2022/838 created the Core International Crimes Evidence Database (CICED) following

Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine; Regulation (EU) 2023/2131

strengthened information-sharing in terrorism cases; and Regulation (EU) 2025/2082

extended the timeframe for the establishment of the new Eurojust case management system

(CMS).

The proposal improves the way in which existing judicial cooperation instruments work. For

example, it improves Eurojust's capacity to facilitate the application of, and to resolve

conflicts of jurisdiction in relation to EIO, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the

mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. By addressing the structural and

operational constraints identified in the 2025 evaluation, this proposal ensures that Eurojust

can more effectively support Member States in combating serious and organised crime.

• Consistency with other Union policies

The proposal aligns with several broader Union policies, reinforcing coherence across the

EU’s judicial and law enforcement framework. In the realm of digitalisation, the proposed

revision of the Europol Regulation improves Eurojust’s CMS and outlines parallel

developments in Europol's operational infrastructure, while ensuring seamless interoperability

between the two. The developments include the modernisation of cross-checking services,

analytical environments and secure infrastructure, which will ensure more efficient

information exchange and coordination between Eurojust, Europol and national authorities.

Moreover, the proposal strengthens Eurojust’s capacity to use digital tools, including the Core

International Crimes Evidence Database (CICED) and an automated hit/no-hit system for

faster data exchange with Europol, the EPPO and OLAF, together with its role in ECRIS-

TCN, thereby facilitating access to third-country criminal records. These measures align with

the EU’s digital justice priorities of improving efficiency and cooperation in cross-border

investigations. Finally, Eurojust will be better equipped to handle electronic evidence, cross-

border data requests and digital forensic analysis, thereby improving its capacity to support

Member States in investigating cybercrime, terrorism and organised crime, reflecting the

priorities set out in the e-evidence framework7.

The proposal reinforces compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European

Union, particularly in the area of data protection. The revision ensures that Eurojust’s

expanded mandate and operational capabilities are exercised in full respect of individual

rights, including the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial. This is achieved by including

strict legal bases for data exchange, aligned with the EUDPR8, which governs the processing

of personal data by EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, including Eurojust.

Oversight by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) ensures that Eurojust adheres

to the highest standards of transparency and accountability in its data processing activities.

Improved procedural safeguards for cross-border evidence gathering reflect the principles of

7 Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 on European

Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for

the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings (OJ L 191, 28.7.2023, pp. 118–180,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1543/oj). 8 In its revised form, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

EN 4 EN

mutual recognition and judicial cooperation embedded in the European Investigation Order

(EIO) Directive9, which was also revised in parallel to this proposal.

The proposal aligns with the strategic priorities identified in the Anti-Fraud Architecture

(AFA) Review, particularly the White Paper for the EU's Anti-Fraud Architecture review10

which emphasises the need for complementary mandates, seamless information flow and

operational synergies between Eurojust, OLAF, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(EPPO), Europol and national authorities. By reinforcing Eurojust's role as a judicial

coordination hub, the proposal ensures that its activities are fully integrated into the broader

EU anti-fraud ecosystem, supporting the investigation and prosecution of PIF (Protection of

the Union’s Financial Interests) offences and other forms of serious cross-border crime.

The proposal strengthens Eurojust's cooperation with third countries, including candidate

countries and potential candidates, and international organisations, in coherence with the EU

Global Strategy and the Action Plan against Drug Trafficking, both of which emphasise the

importance of international cooperation in combating transnational crime. The revision of the

Eurojust Regulation ensures that Eurojust’s external engagements are consistent with the

Union’s external policies, including those governing data transfers to third countries under the

EUDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive11.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

Article 85 TFEU is the legal basis for the proposal and provides that Eurojust's structure,

operation, field of action and tasks are to be determined by regulations adopted in accordance

with the ordinary legislative procedure. It also requires that those regulations determine

arrangements for involving the European Parliament and national parliaments in the

evaluation of Eurojust's activities and thus contribute to an EU-level democratic oversight of

its activities.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

Eurojust's functions (coordination, cooperation facilitation and operational support) are

transnational by nature and cannot be performed effectively solely at Member State-level. The

Agency provides a neutral, EU-level perspective across jurisdictions, facilitates multilateral

cooperation in parallel, and ensures that no Member State is placed at a disadvantage. The

scale and complexity of cross-border investigations render EU-level coordination

indispensable for national prosecutorial and judicial authorities, thus necessitating EU-level

action and adhering to the subsidiarity principle. Eurojust offers operational, legal and

strategic value that improves the functioning of national systems and the coherence of the

EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Action by Eurojust does not replace action by

national authorities, but rather enhances it through support services. There are clear

ecomonies of scale and efficiency gains to be made by further improving Eurojust, which will

9 Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European

Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, pp. 1–36,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/41/oj). 10 COM(2025) 546 final, 16 July 2025. 11 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of

natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of

the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal

penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision,

2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, pp. 89–131, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/680/oj).

EN 5 EN

enable it to bring together expertise from national practitioners in one agency, coordinate

quickly and more efficiently in the fight against transnational crime, and avoid duplication

and conflicting investigations.

• Proportionality

In conformity with the principle of proportionality, this proposal does not go beyond what is

necessary to achieve its objectives. It is targeted, as it focuses on structural and operational

improvements without overstepping Eurojust’s supportive and coordinative role.

The preferred package of measures addresses the problems identified in the most

comprehensive and cost-effective manner. The multi-criteria analysis carried out in an

accompanying impact assessment, which took into account the effectiveness, efficiency,

coherence and proportionality of all policy options, showed that all measures identified had a

net positive benefit and that the preferred measures ranked the highest (see chapter 7 of the

impact assessment and Annex 4 on analytical methods). The estimated costs of this proposal

are proportionate to the objectives and, overall, Eurojust is expected to benefit greatly, in

particular due to its revised governance model, as set out in the impact assessment (see

chapter 8). For example, the introduction of a Management Board for strategic oversight and

an Executive Board for administrative decisions streamlines governance without

compromising the operational independence of National Members. Similarly, the expansion

of Eurojust’s mandate to better counter emerging forms of crime such as cybercrime,

violation of Union’s restrictive measures, and gender-based violence is necessary to keep pace

with the evolving nature of cross-border crime, however, this is carefully balanced to avoid

overlapping with the competences of other EU agencies and Member States.

• Choice of the instrument

The present proposal takes the form of a Regulation, which is stipulated by Article 85 TFEU

as the legal instrument to be used to determine Eurojust's structure, operation, field of action

and tasks.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

The 2025 evaluation of Eurojust identified two core problems necessitating legislative

intervention. The first problem concerns the suboptimal efficiency of Eurojust's internal

organisation and processes. This problem is characterised by a lack of case prioritisation, with

the majority of Eurojust's caseload consisting of bilateral and lower-complexity cases, which

divert resources from high-added value multilateral investigations. Governance inefficiencies

were also highlighted, with National Members spending 40 to 50% of their time on

administrative tasks, reducing their ability to focus on operational work. Additionally, the

powers of National Members vary significantly across Member States, leading to uneven

support and operational fragmentation.

The second problem relates to limitations in Eurojust's interaction with partners, including

suboptimal cooperation with Europol and the EPPO, as well as challenges in third-country

cooperation. The evaluation found the hit/no-hit system for data exchange with Europol and

the EPPO to be cumbersome and manual, delaying operational follow-up. Furthermore, the

process of negotiating international agreements with third countries is time-consuming, and

Liaison Magistrates and Prosecutors are underutilised. The evaluation concluded that without

EN 6 EN

EU intervention, these problems would persist due to legal, structural and cultural barriers,

underscoring the need for a comprehensive revision of the Eurojust Regulation.

• Stakeholder consultations

In order to prepare this Regulation, the Commission consulted specialist stakeholders on a

number of occasions. These consultations included a Public Consultation launched in all 24

official EU languages, a Call for Evidence and an online survey. Moreover, interviews with a

wide range of stakeholders including Eurojust staff, National Members, national authorities,

practitioners and representatives from third countries and international organisations were

carried out by an external contractor.

The Public Consultation, which ran for twelve weeks from 3 December 2025 to 24 February

2026, received 20 responses, with the majority of respondents emphasising the importance of

Eurojust’s role in addressing serious and organised cross-border crime. Stakeholders also

highlighted the need to better consider the perspectives of victims and witnesses and to clarify

case allocation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (EJN). The Call for

Evidence, available on the 'Have Your Say' website, received 42 responses from stakeholders

across 21 EU Member States. The feedback emphasised the complementary roles of Eurojust

and the EJN, the need to strengthen Eurojust’s mandate with more operational roles, and the

importance of improving governance and decision-making processes. Stakeholders also

stressed the need for Eurojust to prioritise cooperation with third countries and invest in

technological tools to respond to the evolving nature of crime. The online survey, which was

open until 4 March 2026, targeted practitioners, Eurojust administration representatives and

National Members, and public officials from both EU and non-EU countries. The survey

results indicated broad support for governance reform, including the introduction of a

Management Board to alleviate the College from administrative burden, and clarify the

division of tasks. Stakeholders also agreed on the need to harmonise the status and powers of

National Members and to strengthen cooperation with relevant EU agencies and bodies, such

as Europol and the EPPO. Concerns were raised about the varying levels of engagement with

Eurojust among third countries, with some respondents suggesting that conditionality clauses

be introduced to enhance cooperation, particularly in EU candidate countries and potential

candidates. In addition to open public consultations, interviews were conducted with 115

stakeholders, including Eurojust administration representatives, National Members, Liaison

Prosecutors, EU agencies, national authorities and international organisations. These

interviews provided deeper insights into the operational challenges faced by Eurojust,

including outdated tools, limited cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

and the need for clearer competences in areas such as e-evidence. Although stakeholders from

third countries and international organisations recognised Eurojust's work as valuable, they

also highlighted opportunities to improve cooperation through measures such as establishing

resident contact points and appointing Liaison Magistrates.

The input received from stakeholders has been carefully considered in developing this

proposal.

• Collection and use of expertise

A combination of internal and external expertise was used to develop this proposal. Eurojust's

internal evaluations, including the 2025 evaluation and the Action Plan for 2026-2027,

provided critical insights into the Agency's operational and governance challenges. External

expertise was sourced from a support study, which analysed the operational and governance

constraints facing Eurojust and proposed policy options to address them. The Commission

also drew on the recommendations of the High-Level Forum on the Future of EU Criminal

EN 7 EN

Justice, which emphasised the need for a more cohesive criminal justice architecture with

Eurojust as a central hub. This expertise was used to inform the policy choices in the

proposal, ensuring they are evidence-based.

• Impact assessment

This proposal is supported by an impact assessment that evaluated various approaches to

addressing Eurojust's operational and structural challenges. The selected measures represent

the most effective solution, focusing on expanding Eurojust's mandate to include emerging

crime areas, standardising National Members' status and powers and improving governance

efficiency. These changes are expected to enhance cross-border judicial cooperation, reduce

administrative burden and strengthen collaboration with Europol, the EPPO and other

partners. The estimated costs are justified by significant operational benefits, including faster

case processing and improved resource allocation.

The assessment compared various policy options against a baseline scenario whereby Eurojust

would continue operating under its current mandate without structural reform. The most

comprehensive solution emerged as the preferred option: it combines legislative changes,

governance reforms and operational improvements to transform Eurojust into a more

proactive and effective judicial cooperation hub in relation to EU justice and security more

widely.

The selected measures focus on three key areas of improvement. First, the revision expands

Eurojust's mandate to reinforce Eurojust’s response in emerging crime areas such as

cybercrime, violations of EU restrictive measures, and gender-based violence, while

establishing semi-permanent operational platforms to support strengthened coordination

among national authorities, including via joint investigation teams. This expansion enables

Eurojust to better address the evolving nature of cross-border criminal activities, particularly

those with digital components or a geopolitical dimension. Second, the reform clarifies certain

definitions and harmonises the status and powers of National Members across Member States,

so as to ensure even operational capabilities, including the authority to issue freezing orders

and e-evidence orders. Standardising powers and capabilities in this way addresses current

inconsistencies in how different Member States implement Eurojust's mandate and ensures

more uniform support for national authorities. Third, the revision will align the governance

structure to the Common Approach applicable to all EU decentralised agencies by

establishing a Management Board, which assumes administrative and management

responsibilities and allows the College of National Members to focus exclusively on

operational matters. This separation of functions is expected to significantly reduce the

administrative burden on National Members, currently estimated at 40% of their workload.

The impact assessment demonstrates that these measures will collectively improve Eurojust's

ability to detect, coordinate and prosecute complex, transnational criminal activities. By

strengthening operational cooperation with Europol through automated data exchange systems

and establishing clearer cooperation frameworks with the European Public Prosecutor's

Office, the reform creates a more integrated EU criminal justice ecosystem. As regards

external relations, the revision clarifies the legal framework for Liaison Magistrates and

institutionalises resident contact points from priority third countries, creating more stable

channels for international judicial cooperation. The assessment concludes that, while these

comprehensive changes require a commensurate increase in resources for Eurojust, they will

generate substantial operational benefits, including faster case processing, improved resource

allocation, and an enhanced ability to combat emerging criminal threats.

EN 8 EN

The impact assessment received a positive opinion from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB)

on 4 May 2026 and was updated to reflect the remarks of the RSB.

• Regulatory fitness and simplification

The proposal complies with the principles of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance

Programme (REFIT) by streamlining Eurojust's governance, clarifying case allocation and

automating data exchange. The introduction of a Management Board reduces the

administrative burden on the College, allowing National Members to focus more on

operational tasks. By clarifying the boundaries of Eurojust’s competences, in particular in

relation to the European Judicial Network (EJN), the proposal aims to minimise duplication of

effort, ensuring that Eurojust's resources are directed toward complex, high-value

investigations. The automation of the hit/no-hit system for data exchange with Europol and

the EPPO reduces manual intervention, improving efficiency and operational responsiveness.

• Fundamental rights

The consequences of the proposal for the protection of fundamental rights have been carefully

considered. The proposal's design ensures compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights

of the European Union, particularly in areas where Eurojust's expanded mandate intersects

with criminal procedural safeguards and data protection. The revision of the Eurojust

Regulation includes strict legal bases for data exchange, ensuring that any processing of

personal data is necessary, proportionate, and subject to oversight by the European Data

Protection Supervisor (EDPS). Purpose limitation safeguards prevent the reuse of data for

unintended objectives, and transparency is embedded in operational procedures to provide

clear avenues for individuals to challenge data processing or operational decisions that affect

their rights.

Procedural safeguards have also been reinforced to ensure that Eurojust's role remains

supportive and coordinative, without interfering with national judicial independence. The

proposal includes mechanisms for transparency and legal remedies, allowing individuals to

challenge decisions that may impact their rights. This ensures that the expansion of Eurojust's

operational role, particularly in areas such as e-evidence and asset recovery, does not

compromise the fundamental rights of individuals involved in cross-border criminal

proceedings.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The revision of the Eurojust Regulation will require an increase of the EU contribution to the

agency of approximately EUR 119 million over the 2028-2034 period (EUR 83 million of

which on top of the financial programming, and EUR 36 million coming from contribution

agreements which will be incorporated into the Agency's regular budget). The total EU

contribution to Eurojust over the next MFF will total EUR 625 million, as detailed in the

Legislative Financial and Digital Statement. This increase will support the Agency’s

expanded mandate, including proactive case handling, enhanced analytical capabilities, and

stronger cooperation with EU and international partners.

The budget will primarily fund 87 additional staff (40 Temporary Agents, 20 Contract Agents,

27 Seconded National Experts) phased in gradually, and IT infrastructure upgrades, including

the expansion of the Core International Crimes Evidence Database (CICED) and digital

cooperation tools as the improved hit/no-hit system. Costs will be distributed progressively

EN 9 EN

before stabilising in 2033. The proposal ensures financial sustainability, while aligning with

EU priorities on security, digitalisation and judicial cooperation.

Besides its regular activities, Eurojust currently implements five projects financed through

contribution agreements with Commission Directorate Generals. Since some of the tasks

related to these projects are now firmly embedded in Eurojust's mandate, such agreements

will be integrated into the Agency's regular budget. This will entail a corresponding increase

in the EU contribution to Eurojust, offset by an equivalent reduction in the envelopes of the

programmes currently financing those agreements, leaving the overall financial programming

unchanged. Existing project funding will be integrated into Eurojust’s regular budget from the

entry into application of the new Regulation, ensuring continuity without additional costs.

This will allow for the stabilisation of 16 staff members (11 Temporary Agents, 5 Contract

Agents) to ensure continuity in the areas of e-evidence and core international crimes.

The reform will address factors identified in the evaluation as limiting the efficiency of

Eurojust’s functioning. In particular, the streamlined governance structure, based on a clearer

separation between operational and administrative responsibilities, will enable National

Members and National Desks to dedicate a greater share of their time and expertise to

casework. In parallel, enhanced cooperation mechanisms, supported by modernised working

methods and systems, will reduce duplication of efforts, improve coordination with partners

and facilitate the handling of requests and information exchanges.

At the same time, the reform significantly expands Eurojust's tasks and responsibilities,

enabling the Agency to provide enhanced support in addressing evolving forms of serious

cross-border crime. While the proposed measures are expected to generate substantial

efficiency gains and a more effective use of existing resources, these gains alone would not be

sufficient to absorb the additional workload resulting from the new mandate. The resource

needs presented above have therefore been estimated after taking into account the expected

efficiency gains generated by the reform.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

Implementation of the revised Eurojust Regulation will be supported by a robust monitoring,

evaluation and reporting framework. Key performance indicators (KPIs) have been

established to track progress toward the proposal's objectives, which include reducing

National Members' administrative workloads, increasing own-initiative cases (that Eurojust

opens proactively where it identifies a need for coordination or judicial involvement) and

increasing follow-ups to data exchange hits. The data supplied for these KPIs will be sourced

from Eurojust’s CMS, the Consolidated Annual Activity Report (CAAR), and reports from

the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on data protection compliance.

An interim review will be conducted after four years to assess the initial impact of the

Regulation, followed by a full evaluation after five years. This evaluation will examine the

operational effectiveness of the new measures, the quality of cooperation with EU partners

and third countries and compliance with fundamental rights. The results of the evaluation will

be made public and shared with the European Parliament, the Council and national

parliaments to ensure transparency and accountability. Eurojust will transmit its consolidated

annual report to the European Parliament, the Council and national parliaments, which may

present observations and conclusions. These reporting arrangements ensure ongoing oversight

and enable stakeholders to provide feedback on the implementation of the Regulation.

EN 10 EN

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

The proposed Regulation consists of nine chapters comprising 87 articles.

Chapter I – General provisions, objectives and tasks

This chapter sets out the foundational framework of Eurojust. It confirms Eurojust's legal

status as a Union agency with legal personality and provides that its seat is in The Hague. It

sets out Eurojust's overall objectives of supporting and strengthening coordination and

cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious

cross-border crime. It lays down a full list of the tasks to be performed by Eurojust to fulfil

those objectives, including assisting national and international authorities in coordinating

investigations, cross-checking information to identify links between cross-border cases,

collecting and preserving evidence of core international crimes, supporting asset recovery,

and cooperating with Union agencies and bodies such as Europol and the EPPO. It also

defines Eurojust's competence, covering the serious crimes listed in Annex I and related

offences, and sets out the geographic and situational conditions in which Eurojust may act,

including in relation to the EPPO and third countries.

Chapter II – Organisation of Eurojust

This chapter defines the governance structure of Eurojust and is divided into four sections,

distinguishing between the management structure and the operational structure.

Section I sets out Eurojust's dual structure: the management structure comprises the

Management Board, the Executive Board and the Administrative Director, while the

operational structure comprises the National Members and the College.

Section II contains the provisions governing the Management Board, which takes key

management decisions and provides strategic orientation for Eurojust's activities. It is

composed of one representative per Member State and one representative of the Commission,

and is responsible for adopting the single programming document, the annual budget, the staff

and security rules and other non-operational decisions. Chapter II lays down the rules,

stemming from the Common approach on decentralised agencies, on composition, election of

the Chairperson, frequency and conduct of meetings, functions and voting arrangements,

including the specific two-thirds majority required for key decisions such as the appointment

of the Administrative Director and the adoption of the budget. It also establishes the annual

and multi-annual programming process, requiring the Management Board to adopt a single

programming document by 30 November each year.

Section III establishes the Executive Board, which is chaired by the President of Eurojust and

assists the Management Board by preparing its decisions, reviewing draft budgets and work

programmes, ensuring follow-up to audit findings and adopting a defined set of administrative

decisions.

Section IV contains the provisions governing the Administrative Director, who manages the

Agency independently and is accountable to the Management Board. The Administrative

Director is appointed by the Management Board for a five-year term on the basis of merit and

is responsible for day-to-day administration, budget implementation, anti-fraud measures and

staff management.

Section V covers the National Members and their National Desks. Each Member State

seconds one National Member to Eurojust's seat in The Hague, supported by at least one

Deputy and one Assistant. National Members must hold high-level prosecutorial or judicial

qualifications and be endowed with certain judicial powers. Notably, Article 19 lists the

EN 11 EN

powers of the National Members, distinguishing between powers that can be exercised

without prior authorisation, and those requiring the agreement of the competent national

authority. Under the first category, National Members may directly contact and exchange

operational information and evidence with competent national and third-country authorities

and relevant Union bodies, open and manage cases in the CMS, organise coordination

meetings and coordination centres, participate in and facilitate joint investigation teams,

including by signing JIT agreements, participate in joint operational platforms and judicial

coordination platforms, ask competent national authorities to undertake investigations or

prosecutions, and assist in the identification and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction. Under

the second one, with the agreement of the competent national authority, or without in urgent

cases, National Members may issue or execute requests for judicial cooperation or mutual

recognition instruments, including issuing the underlying order in accordance with national

law. Section V also introduces a compensation mechanism for the Member State whose

National Member is President of Eurojust, to cover the costs of reinforcing the National Desk

during the presidential mandate.

Section VI governs the College, composed of all National Members, which is responsible for

the operational functions of Eurojust and acts with full independence. The College deals with

casework, taking the appropriate operational decisions in relation to cases referred by Member

States or, where appropriate, opening cases on its own initiative. It elects the President and

Vice-President from among the National Members by a two-thirds majority for four-year

terms.

Chapter III – Operational matters

This chapter is the core operational chapter of the Regulation. It is divided into four sections

that cover the different modes and forms of Eurojust's operational activities.

Section I addresses Eurojust's primary operational function of facilitating judicial cooperation

and coordination. It sets out the way in which Eurojust supports cross-border investigations

and prosecutions, including organising coordination meetings and coordination centres,

facilitating judicial cooperation instruments, assisting in the resolution of conflicts of

jurisdiction and cross-checking information in relevant databases. It details the operational,

technical, analytical, legal and financial support Eurojust provides to joint investigation

teams, including assistance in drafting JIT agreements and managing Eurojust's financial

contribution to JIT activities. It also establishes judicial coordination platforms, which

Eurojust may set up at the request of two or more Member States or on its own initiative to

support particularly complex cross-border investigations, providing operational, technical,

analytical, legal and financial support to the platforms and their participants.

Section II governs operational activities carried out by Eurojust on its own initiative, in the

absence of a request from national authorities or the EPPO. It sets out the conditions and

procedures under which National Members may ask competent national authorities to

undertake or extend investigations, set up joint investigation teams, prioritise judicial

cooperation requests or take other justified measures. It also addresses Eurojust's capacity to

preserve, analyse and store evidence related to core international crimes, making it available

to Member States, third countries and international criminal courts and tribunals to facilitate

case-building. Section II further provides for the retention of operational knowledge derived

from Eurojust's casework, the development of guidelines and best practices, and the

establishment of Eurojust Centres of Expertise in criminal matters (ECE) to provide strategic,

analytical and operational support in priority crime areas.

Section III covers additional forms of operational support provided by Eurojust, including its

role as a contact point for third countries and international organisations under Regulation

EN 12 EN

(EU) 2019/816 on ECRIS-TCN, its support for victims of crime in cross-border criminal

proceedings, and its involvement, together with Europol and within their respective mandate,

in the EMPACT cycles, contributing to the preparation of strategic analyses and the

operational implementation of Union priorities for combating serious crime.

Section IV establishes the framework for the exchange of information between Eurojust and

national authorities. It requires each Member State to set up a Eurojust national coordination

system to ensure effective coordination between the National Desk and national authorities, to

include the contact points of relevant European networks and the national correspondent for

terrorism matters. It lays down the general obligation incumbent on competent national

authorities to exchange all information necessary for Eurojust's tasks, which includes specific

notification requirements for cases involving at least three Member States and for all terrorism

cases referred to judicial authorities.

This section also regulates the flow of operational information between Eurojust staff and the

Member States through the National Members, provides for secure digital communication

through a decentralised IT system based on e-CODEX, and establishes the CMS as the central

tool for processing operational personal data, managing cases, cross-checking information and

preserving evidence. Finally, it sets out the rules on access to the CMS at national level and

on the management of information by National Members and authorised staff.

Chapter IV – Processing of information

This chapter sets out the data protection framework governing the processing of personal data

by Eurojust. It establishes that both this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 apply to

Eurojust's data processing activities, with the operational data protection rules in this

Regulation taking precedence (as lex specialis) over the general rules of Regulation (EU)

2018/1725. This approach ensures legal clarity while preserving the general data protection

framework applicable to Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

Chapter IV defines the categories of operational personal data that Eurojust may process. This

includes data on suspects, convicted persons, victims and other parties to proceedings,

together with, in exceptional and time-limited circumstances, additional data immediately

relevant to ongoing coordinated investigations. It lays down strict time limits for the storage

of operational personal data after the termination of a proceedings, and imposes requirements

in relation to automated review mechanisms to ensure compliance.

This chapter also sets out the rights of data subjects in relation to operational personal data,

including the right of access and the limitations on that right, the right to restriction of

processing, and the conditions under which access may be refused where it would jeopardise

an ongoing investigation or the safety of an individual. Under chapter 4, access to operational

personal data within Eurojust is restricted to National Members, authorised seconded national

experts, designated national system users and authorised Eurojust staff. It provides for the

designation of a Data Protection Officer by the Executive Board and establishes the rules on

notification in the event of a personal data breach. It concludes by allocating responsibility for

data accuracy and legal compliance either to Eurojust or to the Member States, depending on

the origin and subsequent handling of the data.

Chapter V – Relations with partners

This chapter governs Eurojust's external relations. It comprises three sections that cover

relations with Union bodies and agencies and international cooperation.

Section I sets out the common provisions applicable to all of Eurojust's cooperative relations.

It provides that Eurojust may conclude working arrangements with Union institutions, bodies,

offices and agencies, and with third-country authorities and organs of international

EN 13 EN

organisations, subject to prior consultation with the Commission. Such arrangements may not

constitute legal basis for the exchange of personal data and do not create legal obligations

incumbent on the Union or Member States. Section I also regulates the common hit/no-hit

system enabling designated Union agencies and bodies — in particular Europol, the EPPO,

OLAF, AMLA and the EUCA — to obtain indirect access to Eurojust's CMS through an

automated index, with the Commission empowered to adopt implementing acts specifying the

technical and functional specifications of the hit/no-hit system.

Section II governs Eurojust's relations with specific Union bodies, offices and agencies. It

establishes a privileged relationship with the European Judicial Network, which involves

hosting the Network's Secretariat within Eurojust's staff and handling coordination through

the national coordination system. It requires Eurojust to support a range of other networks and

bodies active in judicial cooperation, including the JITs Network, the European Judicial

Cybercrime Network and the European Judicial Organised Crime Network. It governs

Eurojust’s cooperation with Europol, which provides for a working arrangement setting out

practical cooperation modalities, mutual access to selected information stored in the

respective databases through the hit/no-hit system, and the possibility of establishing joint

operational platforms. It establishes the framework for cooperation with the EPPO, based on

mutual cooperation within their respective mandates, including an obligation to report any

criminal conduct falling within the EPPO's competence without undue delay, and the

secondment of an EPPO liaison officer to Eurojust. It also sets out Eurojust's cooperative

relations with OLAF, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, the Authority for Anti-

Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA) and the EU Customs

Authority.

The proposal refers to the current legal framework governing the relationship between

Eurojust and the EPPO, reflecting the fact that the EPPO was established by means of

enhanced cooperation. This is without affecting any future developments that may arise from

changes in the participation of Member States in the EPPO, including in the context of the

envisaged accession of Hungary.

Section III governs international cooperation between Eurojust and third-country authorities

and international organisations. It provides for the adoption of a four-year cooperation

strategy and the posting of Eurojust liaison magistrates to third countries to facilitate judicial

cooperation. It establishes the conditions for the secondment of liaison prosecutors from third

countries and international organisations to Eurojust on the basis of international agreements,

including their access to the case management system. It allows for the hosting of contact

points from third countries at Eurojust to expedite judicial cooperation and the designation of

contact points in third countries and international organisations, where this is provided for in a

working arrangement between Eurojust and the third country authorities or organs of

international organization concerned, specifying that such contact points are not to have direct

access to the case management system or to operational personal data.

Chapter VI – Establishment and structure of the budget

This chapter describes the annual budgetary process, requiring the Administrative Director to

draw up a draft statement of estimates, which is reviewed by the Executive Board and

approved by the Management Board before being forwarded to the Commission by 31

January each year. The budget becomes definitive following final adoption of the general

budget of the Union by the budgetary authorities.

Provisions are set out relating to the structure, implementation and control of Eurojust's

budget. It specifies that the budget must be balanced in terms of revenue and expenditure,

with revenue sources including the Union contribution, voluntary Member State

EN 14 EN

contributions, third-country contributions and charges for publications and services. The

Administrative Director acts as authorising officer and is responsible for implementing the

budget in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The

chapter lays down detailed deadlines and procedures for the presentation of provisional and

final accounts, the submission of reports to the Court of Auditors, the Commission, the

European Parliament and the Council, and the grant of discharge by the European Parliament.

It provides for the adoption of financial rules by the Management Board, which must not

depart from the Framework Regulation for Decentralised Agencies without the Commission's

prior consent. The Anti-Fraud Framework, applying Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

883/201312, grants audit powers to the Court of Auditors and investigative powers to OLAF,

and recognises the EPPO's competence to investigate fraud affecting the Union's financial

interests.

Chapter VII – Staff

This chapter lays down the general provisions applicable to Eurojust's staff, establishing that

they work under the authority of the Administrative Director and are subject to the Staff

Regulations and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. It

defines 'authorised Eurojust staff' as members of staff designated to perform specific

operational, administrative or technical tasks and sets out their functions, which include

supporting National Desks, case management, operational analysis and a range of

administrative activities. Chapter VII also provides that Eurojust may make use of seconded

national experts and other staff not directly employed by it, and confirms that Protocol No 7

on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union applies to Eurojust and its staff.

Chapter VIII – Evaluation and reporting

This chapter establishes Eurojust's accountability and reporting framework. It requires

Eurojust to transmit its consolidated annual report to the European Parliament, the Council

and national parliaments by 1 May each year, and requires the President to appear annually

before the European Parliament and national parliaments at an interparliamentary committee

meeting. It requires Eurojust to contribute to the annual report on the protection of the Union's

financial interests under Article 325(5) TFEU, using reporting indicators defined by the

Commission. Chapter VIII also provides that the Commission and Member States may

request Eurojust's opinion on proposed legislative acts falling within the scope of Article 76

TFEU. A five-yearly independent evaluation of Eurojust's performance is required, as is an

assessment every ten years of whether the continuation of the Agency remains justified.

Chapter IX – General and final provisions

This chapter sets out the general framework for Eurojust's operation and the transitional

arrangements accompanying the entry into force of the Regulation. It provides that Regulation

(EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents applies to documents held by Eurojust,

requires Eurojust to adopt security rules for the protection of classified and sensitive non-

classified information based on Commission Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 and

2015/444, and confirms that Council Regulation No 1 on language arrangements applies. It

establishes a five-yearly evaluation process, lays down the liability regime governing

Eurojust's contractual and non-contractual liability, and provides for a Headquarters

Agreement with the Netherlands. Chapter IX repeals Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, while

ensuring full continuity of Eurojust as a legal entity, of its staff and appointed officials, of

12 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September

2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation

(Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, pp. 1–22, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/883/oj).

EN 15 EN

ongoing operational activities and cases, of the case management system and data processed

thereunder, and of existing international agreements and working arrangements. It provides

that references in existing legal instruments to Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 are to be read as

references to this Regulation, and that the Regulation will enter into force on the twentieth

day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

EN 1 EN

2026/0164 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and

repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular

Article 85 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1) The European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) was

established by Council Decision 2002/187/JHA13 as a Union body with legal

personality, to stimulate and improve coordination and cooperation between

competent judicial authorities of the Member States in relation to serious crime and

organised crime with a cross-border dimension. Following the entry into force of the

Treaty of Lisbon, Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the

Council14 was adopted on 14 November 2018, repealing and replacing Council

Decision 2002/187/JHA. Eurojust's legal framework has since been amended by

Regulation (EU) 2022/83815, Regulation (EU) 2023/213116 and Regulation (EU)

2025/208217.

(2) Article 85 TFEU provides that Eurojust's mission is to support and strengthen

coordination and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting

authorities in relation to serious crime affecting two or more Member States or

requiring prosecution on common bases, on the basis of operations conducted and

information supplied by the Member States' authorities and by the European Union

13 Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight

against serious crime (OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1), as amended by Council Decision 2003/659/JHA (OJ L 245,

29.9.2003, p. 44) and Council Decision 2009/426/JHA (OJ L 138, 4.6.2009, p. 14). 14 Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the

European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council

Decision 2002/187/JHA (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 138). 15 Regulation (EU) 2022/838 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 amending

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 as regards the preservation, analysis and storage at Eurojust of evidence relating

to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related criminal offences (OJ L 148, 31.5.2022, p. 1). 16 Regulation (EU) 2023/2131 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 October 2023 amending

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision

2005/671/JHA, as regards digital information exchange in terrorism cases (OJ L, 2023/2131, 11.10.2023). 17 Regulation (EU) 2025/2082 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 as regards the extension of the timeframe for the establishment of the Eurojust

case management system (OJ L, 2025/2082, 15.10.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/2082/oj).

EN 2 EN

Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)18. Article 85 TFEU further

requires the European Parliament and national parliaments to be involved in the

evaluation of Eurojust's activities.

(3) This Regulation aims to ensure that Eurojust remains fit for purpose in light of the

evolving criminal landscape and internal security architecture of the Union. It

therefore strengthens Eurojust's operational mandate, makes its governance structure

more agile, and adapts its legal framework to reflect developments in the nature and

scale of serious cross-border crime, technological advancements shaping both criminal

activity and judicial cooperation, and the broader evolution of the Union's area of

freedom, security and justice.

(4) Since the amendments necessary to achieve those objectives are substantial in number

and nature, Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 should, in the interests of clarity and legal

certainty, be repealed and replaced in its entirety by this Regulation in relation to the

Member States bound by it. Eurojust as established by this Regulation is the legal

successor of Eurojust as established by Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. The continuity of

agreements, working arrangements and other instruments governing Eurojust's

cooperation with third countries, international organisations and Union bodies should

be ensured, in accordance with their terms.

(5) Eurojust should support and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national

investigating and prosecuting authorities in cases where serious crime affects two or

more Member States or requires prosecution on common bases, including where it has

repercussions at Union level. The concept of repercussions at Union level should be

interpreted having regard to the increasingly transnational nature of serious crime and

the operational realities faced by national judicial authorities. Criminal activities

planned, organised or directed from outside the Union can generate significant security

and judicial repercussions within it, especially where such crimes present a hybrid

dimension. This is particularly manifest in cases involving terrorism planned or

financed abroad but carried out within the Union, trafficking in human beings and

migrant smuggling along routes originating outside the Union, drug trafficking by

organisations based in third countries supplying consumer markets within the Union,

and cyberattacks launched from outside the Union against critical infrastructure or

public authorities of Member States. Activities of criminal nature, such as money

laundering or organised crime, can also be linked to foreign information manipulation

and interference and disinformation campaigns, posing an additional risk to security in

the Union. Where such criminal conduct presents a nexus to the security, citizens or

fundamental interests of the Union, Eurojust may assist in the relevant investigations

and prosecutions, provided that the offences concerned fall within the scope of Annex

I to this Regulation and that any such assistance is provided in compliance with

applicable international agreements and Union data protection rules.

(6) In view of the shifting landscape of serious and cross-border crime, it is necessary to

update Eurojust's competence to ensure that the legal framework remains fit for

purpose and able to address the new realities of crime. The Union is confronted with

evolving and increasingly sophisticated criminal threats, including cyber-dependent

and cyber-enabled crime, and the terrorist use of digital infrastructures, which

18 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European

Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions

2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p.

53).

EN 3 EN

undermine democratic institutions, public security, critical infrastructure and societal

resilience. Other forms of serious crime, such as gender-based violence, particularly

where facilitated by digital technologies or involving cross-border elements, also have

a profound and lasting impact on victims, equality and fundamental rights. The

effective investigation and prosecution of such crimes require a coordinated Union

approach, enhanced cross-border judicial cooperation, and the strengthening of

common security and information integrity capabilities, in full respect of fundamental

rights and the rule of law. The list of forms of serious crime in respect of which

Eurojust is competent should therefore be updated to reflect those evolving criminal

threats, including violations of Union restrictive measures and gender-based violence,

and should be regularly reviewed to ensure that Eurojust's mandate remains relevant

and effective.

(7) Eurojust's tasks should be expanded and specified to reflect its role as a strategic,

analytical and proactive hub for cross-border judicial cooperation, supporting

competent national authorities through operational and analytical assistance. Its

involvement in Union policy-making and relevant strategic cycles should also be

enhanced, enabling Eurojust to bring its casework-based expertise to the definition of

Union priorities for combating serious crime. Particular emphasis should be placed on

Eurojust's role in facilitating and supporting the issuance and execution of judicial

cooperation and mutual recognition instruments, resolving conflicts of jurisdiction

between competent national authorities, supporting cross-border asset recovery,

collecting, preserving and storing evidence of core international crimes, and assisting

victims of serious crime in cross-border criminal proceedings.

(8) Eurojust should also develop and maintain specialised knowledge and expertise in

judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including through the establishment of

Eurojust Centres of Expertise in criminal matters (ECE). ECE should cooperate

closely with any similar specialised structures established at Union level, including

Union Centres of Specialised Expertise and the EU Centre for the Protection of

Children from Child Sexual Abuse, within their respective mandates and ensuring

complementarity, to maximise the operational value of their combined expertise for

the benefit of the competent national authorities of the Member States.

(9) It is essential that Eurojust assumes a more prominent role in supporting victims of

serious crime in cross-border cases, in accordance with the Union's strategy in that

area and with Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council

establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of

crime19. That is of particular relevance in cases involving a large number of victims or

victims of mass fraud, especially online, with links to different Member States and in

cases potentially falling under multiple jurisdictions, as well as in cases involving

gender-based violence with a cross-border dimension. Eurojust should actively assist

Member States in upholding victims' rights in cross-border criminal proceedings,

including by facilitating the identification of victims, advising competent national

authorities on victims' procedural rights under national and Union law, and assisting

with access to compensation and restitution, including of property subject to freezing

and confiscation measures.

19 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing

minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council

Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57).

EN 4 EN

(10) Eurojust's competence in relation to the forms of serious crime listed in Annex I

should be clearly defined, covering not only those offences directly listed but also

criminal offences committed in order to procure the means of committing, to facilitate

or commit, or to ensure the impunity of those committing, the forms of serious crime

listed. In addition to the forms of crime explicitly listed, Eurojust should have the

flexibility to assist in other cases, within the limits of its mandate set out in this

Regulation, at the request of a competent national authority where there is a specific

operational need to do so.

(11) As the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) has been established by means of

enhanced cooperation, Council Regulation (EU) 2017/193920 is binding in its entirety

and directly applicable only to Member States that participate in that enhanced

cooperation. For the cases not falling within the competence of the EPPO, Eurojust

remains fully competent for the forms of serious crime listed in Annex I to this

Regulation. In light of their respective mandates, Eurojust should be able to operate in

cases concerning crimes falling within the EPPO’s remit where those cases involve

both participating and non-participating Member States, or where the EPPO decides

not act, at the request of the non-participating Member States or of the EPPO. Eurojust

should in any case remain competent to support cases concerning criminal offences

affecting the financial interests of the Union wherever the EPPO is not competent or

does not exercise its competence. The EPPO and Eurojust should develop close

operational cooperation within their respective mandates, as further governed by the

working arrangement between them.

(12) In accordance with Article 85 TFEU, Eurojust's tasks may include the initiation of

criminal investigations. The role of Eurojust should not be limited to reacting to

requests for assistance and operational support by Member States, but should extend to

proactively promoting a coordinated and strategic judicial response against serious

crime at Union level. Drawing on its position at the intersection of national

investigations and Union level’s cooperation, Eurojust should be able to use its

analytical capabilities and expertise to facilitate actions taken on its own initiative, in

cooperation with Member States and on the basis of information provided by them, by

Europol, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), established by Commission

Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom21, the EPPO and other Union bodies and

agencies. This should include involving Member States that might not initially have

been included in a case, as well as requesting Member States to open investigations or

undertake certain investigative measures, in particular where Eurojust identifies, on

the basis of its analysis, links between cases or other situations requiring judicial

coordination. To that end, National Members should be empowered to open cases on

their own initiative in the Eurojust case management system, thereby strengthening

Eurojust's capacity to drive coordination proactively while preserving the primacy of

competent national authorities in the conduct of investigations and prosecution.

(13) Consistency in the status, profile and powers of National Members across Member

States is essential to the effective and even application of this Regulation. Member

States should therefore be required to appoint National Members who are active

members of the public prosecution service or of the judiciary, and who possess the

20 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the

establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (the EPPO) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). 21 Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-fraud

Office (OLAF) (notified under document number SEC(1999) 802) (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/1999/352/oj).

EN 5 EN

qualifications required for appointment to high prosecutorial or judicial offices,

together with relevant practical experience of national legal systems and of

international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. National Members should, in

accordance with the law of their Member State, be entrusted at least with the powers

necessary to exercise fully their competences and perform effectively their tasks under

this Regulation, so that differences in national arrangements do not impede Eurojust’s

operations, in particular in urgent cases. Those powers should include at a minimum:

directly contacting and exchanging operational information and evidence with

competent national and third-country authorities and with relevant Union bodies,

offices and agencies; opening, registering and managing cases in the case management

system; organising coordination meetings and coordination centres; participating in,

and where appropriate initiating or facilitating the establishment and operation of, joint

investigation teams, including by signing an agreement establishing a joint

investigation team (JIT agreement); participating in joint operational platforms, ECE

and judicial coordination platforms; requesting competent national authorities to

undertake investigations or prosecutions or to take any other measure justified for the

purposes of an investigation or prosecution.

(14) In order to ensure timely action in cross-border cases, with the agreement of the

competent national authority, and in accordance with national law, National Members

should also be empowered to issue or execute requests for judicial cooperation or

mutual recognition, including investigative measures under Directive 2014/41/EU of

the European Parliament and of the Council22, freezing and confiscation orders under

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council23, and

European Production Orders or European Preservation Orders under Regulation (EU)

2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council24. Where required under

national law and consistently with the status of the National Member as active member

of prosecutions services or of the judiciary, that empowerment should also cover the

issuing of the underlying national measures necessary to give legal effect to those

instruments in accordance with applicable Union and national law. They should

furthermore be able to request their asset recovery offices to provide information on

instrumentalities, proceeds or property which are or might become the object of a

freezing or confiscation order and to take immediate action until a freezing order is

issued, as provided for under Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament

and of the Council25, In urgent cases where it is not possible to identify or contact the

competent national authority in a timely manner, National Members should be

competent to take those measures in their own capacity in accordance with national

law, informing the competent national authority without undue delay. Measures taken

by National Members in such circumstances remain subject to the review of the

respective competent national authorities and courts, in accordance with applicable

national procedural law. Member States may grant additional powers to National

Members beyond those set out in this Regulation and shall notify the Commission and

the College accordingly. In order to ensure that National Members, their Deputies and,

22 Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European

Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1). 23 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the

mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1). 24 Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 on European

Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for

the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings (OJ L 191, 28.7.2023, p. 1). 25 Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on asset recovery

and confiscation (OJ L, 2024/1260, 2.5.2024).

EN 6 EN

where applicable, their Assistants can effectively exercise the powers conferred upon

them under this Regulation and act as fully empowered judicial cooperation authorities

within the Union's judicial cooperation architecture, Member States should appoint

them, as competent authority for the purposes of the applicable Union acts on judicial

cooperation in criminal matters, in particular those referred to in this Regulation.

When acting on its own initiative, Eurojust should be able to act through its National

Members, who may, giving their reasons, ask the competent authorities of their

Member States to undertake an investigation or prosecution in respect of specific acts,

or any other measure justified for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution. By

way of illustration, this could cover requests to issue the relevant instrument of judicial

cooperation, to carry out a financial investigation, to take pre-trial provisional

measures, to conduct a hearing of witnesses or experts, or to adopt measures aimed at

protecting victims and witnesses.

(15) It is necessary to provide Eurojust with a governance structure that enables it to

perform its tasks more effectively and efficiently, aligning it with the principles

applicable to Union agencies, in particular the 2012 Joint Statement of the European

Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on

decentralised agencies. At the same time, such an approach should take due account of

Eurojust’s specific nature as a judicial cooperation agency. Accordingly, the

independence of National Members and of the College in the exercise of their

operational functions should be safeguarded. Eurojust should consist of a management

structure, comprising the Management Board, the Executive Board and the

Administrative Director, and an operational structure, comprising the National

Members and the College, with the respective functions of those bodies clearly

delineated in this Regulation.

(16) In order for Eurojust to fulfil its mission and deploy its full potential in the fight

against serious cross-border crime, its operational dimension should be strengthened

by reducing the administrative burden on National Members, allowing them to focus

on casework. The College should be competent for operational matters, in keeping

with the unique character of the agency in handling judicial cases and interacting with

national authorities on the basis of mutual trust, while administrative and budgetary

responsibilities should be assumed by the Management Board and the Executive

Board. In the same spirit of simplification and of reducing the involvement of the

College in non-core tasks, the preparation and coordination of strategic reports,

guidance documents and other analytical outputs of relevance to practitioners should

increasingly be entrusted to Eurojust staff, including in the context of ECE.

(17) To improve quality and efficiency decision-making processes, a Management Board

should be established as an independent oversight body, and entrusted with adopting

the most high-level decisions regarding budget, strategic priorities and management

matters, including the single programming document, the annual budget, the staff rules

and the security rules. Member States will be fully involved in the governance of the

agency through their representation on the Management Board. In order to preserve

the separation between administrative and operational matters, Member States should

be precluded from appointing National Members as their representatives in the

Management Board, so that operational casework and administrative oversight are

entrusted to persons with the appropriate respective expertise. All parties represented

in the Management Board should make efforts to limit the turnover of their

representatives so as to ensure continuity of work, and should aim to achieve a gender-

balanced representation.

EN 7 EN

(18) An Executive Board should be established to prepare, inform and assist the work of

the Management Board and the preparation of its meetings. In addition, the Executive

Board should, in the cases provided for in this Regulation, take decisions in its own

capacity on matters relating to the day-to-day administration of Eurojust.

(19) While fully respecting the separation between administrative and operational

responsibilities, the views of the College should be taken into account where

administrative decisions are liable to have a significant impact on Eurojust’s

operational work, in particular as regards the definition of priority crime areas. For

that reason, in the matters listed in this Regulation, the Management Board and the

Executive Board, within their respective remits, should consult the College in advance

before taking a decision. To ensure that the views of the College are duly represented,

the President of Eurojust should participate in the Management Board and in the

Executive Board as representative of the College. Where reports, opinions, policy

papers and guidelines that the Executive Board may adopt are likely to be of direct

operational relevance, particularly where they may relate to ongoing investigations or

prosecutions or to other non-public strategic information, the College should be

consulted in advance.

(20) The Administrative Director should be the manager of Eurojust and should be

accountable to the Management Board. The Administrative Director should be

responsible for the implementation of the tasks assigned to Eurojust by this

Regulation, including ensuring the day-to-day administration of the agency,

implementing decisions adopted by the Management Board and the Executive Board,

and preparing and implementing the budget and the single programming document.

The Administrative Director should be appointed on the basis of merit and

documented administrative and managerial skills, as well as relevant competence and

experience. The Administrative Director is the legal representative of Eurojust.

(21) A President and a Vice-President of Eurojust should be elected by the College from

among the National Members for a term of office of four years, renewable once. When

a National Member is elected President, the Member State concerned should be able to

second, for the duration of the presidential mandate, an official with the necessary

qualifications and experience to reinforce the National Desk and ensure that it

continues to function effectively, as well as to apply for compensation from Eurojust's

budget. They may have the status of a Deputy or Assistant to the National Member

who has been elected President, or they may have a more administrative or technical

function, and each Member State should be able to determine its own requirements in

this regard. Since the compensation mechanism has a budgetary impact, implementing

powers to determine that mechanism should be conferred on the Council. While the

Administrative Director is the legal representative of Eurojust, the President of the

College represents Eurojust in political fora, in particular when presenting Eurojust's

activities, operational priorities and strategic considerations to Union institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies, third countries and international organisations.

(22) To ensure that Eurojust is able to fulfil its tasks without delay in urgent cases, each

National Desk should be available at all times to receive and process urgent requests.

To that end, arrangements should be made to ensure that at least one member of each

National Desk can be reached at any time, so that urgent requests concerning their

Member State are handled without delay.

(23) Each Member State should establish a Eurojust national coordination system to

support the work of its National Member and ensure coordination between the

EN 8 EN

National Desk and the competent national authorities of that Member State. Those

systems should include the contact points of networks with which Eurojust maintains

relations, such as the Network of National Experts on Joint Investigation Teams (JITs

Network), the European network of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against

humanity and war crimes established by Council Decision 2002/494/JHA26, the

European contact-point network against corruption established by Council Decision

2008/852/JHA27, the European Judicial Cybercrime Network, the European Judicial

Organised Crime Network, and the contact points designated under Council Decision

2007/845/JHA28, as well as the national correspondents for Eurojust, for terrorism

matters, for issues relating to the competence of the EPPO, and for the European

Judicial Network established by Council Decision 2008/976/JHA29. Member States

may decide that one or more of those tasks are to be performed by the same national

correspondent.

(24) For the purposes of stimulating and strengthening coordination and cooperation

between national investigating and prosecuting authorities, it is crucial that Eurojust

receives from national authorities the information necessary for the performance of its

tasks. Competent national authorities should inform their National Members without

undue delay of the setting up and results of joint investigation teams. They should also

inform National Members without undue delay of cases falling under the competence

of Eurojust that directly involve at least three Member States and for which requests

for or decisions on judicial cooperation have been transmitted to at least two Member

States. In certain circumstances, they should also inform National Members of

conflicts of jurisdiction, controlled deliveries and repeated difficulties encountered in

the execution of requests for judicial cooperation. As regards terrorist offences,

competent national authorities should inform their National Members of all relevant

criminal investigations as soon as they are referred to judicial authorities, regardless of

whether a known link to another Member State or third country exists, subject to the

conditions set out in this Regulation.

(25) One of the main challenges in combating serious cross-border crime is the timely

identification of links and overlaps between ongoing investigations and prosecutions

of criminal networks, in particular transnational organised crime networks involved in

drug trafficking, and investigations and prosecutions concerning financial or other

forms of serious fraud. In this context, the cross-checking of relevant information also

serves to promote the efficiency of judicial administration by preventing the

duplication of parallel proceedings before different national courts, thereby reducing

the risk of violating the ne bis in idem principle. Eurojust should systematically cross-

check information contained in relevant databases in order to identify links between

cross-border investigations and provide effective coordination and support to

competent national authorities. The availability of analysed datasets and cross-checked

information is essential for effective case-building and supports competent national

authorities in developing strategic prosecutorial approaches.

26 Council Decision 2002/494/JHA of 13 June 2002 setting up a European network of contact points in respect

of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (OJ L 167, 26.6.2002, p. 1). 27 Council Decision 2008/852/JHA of 24 October 2008 on a contact-point network against corruption (OJ L

301, 12.11.2008, p. 38). 28 Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery

Offices of the Member States in the field of tracing and identification of proceeds from, or other property

related to, crime (OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 103). 29 Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network (OJ L 348,

24.12.2008, p. 130, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2008/976/oj).

EN 9 EN

(26) The establishment and support of joint investigation teams is a cornerstone of

Eurojust's operational activities. Eurojust should provide operational, technical,

analytical, legal and financial support to joint investigation teams, including by

advising on the opportunity and legal requirements for setting up a joint investigation

team, assisting in the drafting and negotiation of JIT agreements, advising on

prosecutorial strategies and the implementation of operational actions and the

possibility to involve Europol. Financial support should be provided in accordance

with the applicable financial rules and may include simplified forms of funding, such

as lump sums, unit costs and flat-rate financing. Eurojust should also support the JITs

Network through its staff, in particular by organising its meetings and training

activities, collecting and analysing evaluations of individual joint investigation teams,

and managing Eurojust's financial support to those teams. Where appropriate for

efficient cross-border investigations, Eurojust should also facilitate and support the

participation of third countries, including EU candidate countries and potential

candidates, in JITs.

(27) To support particularly complex cross-border investigations or prosecutions, or to

enhance judicial cooperation in addressing specific forms of serious crime, Eurojust

should be able to establish judicial coordination platforms at the request of two or

more Member States or on its own initiative with the agreement of the Member States

concerned. Those semi-permanent structured cooperation mechanisms should bring

together representatives of the competent national authorities, including members of

the National Desks, and be supported by authorised Eurojust staff. They should

facilitate the synchronisation of investigations and prosecutions across multiple

jurisdictions, help prevent potential conflicts of jurisdiction, enable timely sharing of

information and evidence relevant to judicial authorities, support the development and

implementation of common prosecution strategies, and provide specialised assistance

to competent national authorities. Information processed in the framework of a judicial

coordination platform should be handled in accordance with this Regulation and stored

in the case management system. The establishment of judicial coordination platforms

builds on the successful operational experience of the International Centre for the

Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA), hosted by Eurojust,

which has demonstrated the value of a structured, sustained and multi-jurisdictional

judicial cooperation mechanism in addressing the most serious crimes.

(28) The capacity for Eurojust to collect, preserve, analyse and store information that may

be used as evidence in criminal proceedings is of the highest importance in the field of

genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of aggression and related

criminal offences. The Core International Crimes Evidence Database (CICED),

established and operated by Eurojust, has demonstrated the unique value of a

centralised and secure mechanism for preserving and cross-checking evidence of core

international crimes from multiple jurisdictions, supporting national prosecutorial

authorities and facilitating the work of international criminal courts and tribunals. For

the purposes of the interpretation of this Regulation, and without affecting any further

development of international law, the notion of core international crimes should be

understood as encompassing the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war

crimes and the crime of aggression, as defined in the Rome Statute of the International

Criminal Court.

(29) This Regulation strengthens Eurojust's mandate to preserve, analyse and store

evidence, providing a legal framework for the further development of CICED. Where

necessary, that capacity should be extended to other forms of serious crime within

EN 10 EN

Eurojust's mandate, in particular organised crime, to support specific investigations

and prosecutions for which a joint investigation team or a judicial coordination

platform has been established. Particularly in this respect, Eurojust and Europol should

cooperate closely within their respective mandates, avoiding duplication of effort, as

regards the processing and analysis of information in the fight against organised crime.

(30) The prevention and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States is a

key function of Eurojust, complementing the framework established by Council

Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA30. That Framework Decision established

obligations for competent authorities of Member States to enter into direct

consultations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that parallel proceedings

are being conducted in different Member States, and provides for the involvement of

Eurojust where those consultations do not lead to a consensus. Building on that

framework, Eurojust should play a key role in assisting competent national authorities

in the identification, prevention and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction, including by

identifying parallel or linked proceedings, providing legal advice on the application of

the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental

Rights of the European Union, issuing non-binding reasoned opinions or

recommendations on the resolution of such conflicts, and facilitating the transfer of

proceedings to the jurisdiction best placed to prosecute. That function is essential to

prevent impunity, avoid duplicative proceedings and ensure the efficient use of

judicial resources across Member States.

(31) The tracing, freezing, confiscation and recovery of criminal assets is a priority area for

Eurojust's operational support. Eurojust should assist Member States in cross-border

asset recovery cases, including in relation to post-conviction and non-conviction-based

confiscation, and should cooperate closely with Asset Recovery Offices designated in

accordance with Council Decision 2007/845/JHA and other competent authorities to

maximise the effectiveness of financial investigations and asset recovery proceedings,

including through the use of the instruments provided for in Directive (EU)

2024/1260.

(32) Eurojust should, in complementarity with Europol and within their respective

mandates, support the competent authorities of the Member States in the context of

digital investigations and access to electronic evidence. Given the ever growing

importance of electronic evidence in cross-border criminal investigations, there is a

need for Eurojust to serve as a dedicated operational and knowledge hub for judicial

authorities navigating the complex legal landscape governing cross-border access to

data, including as regards direct requests to service providers under Regulation (EU)

2023/154331. In that context, Eurojust and Europol should build on and further develop

their established cooperation in the field of electronic evidence, including through the

SIRIUS project, which provides judicial and law enforcement practitioners with

knowledge, tools and training on cross-border access to electronic evidence.

(33) Communication between the competent national authorities and Eurojust should be

carried out through a secure decentralised IT system based on e-CODEX access

points, enabling the reliable and secure cross-border exchange of information. The

Commission should be responsible for the creation, maintenance and development of

30 Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts

of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings (OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 42). 31 Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 on European

Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for

the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings (OJ L 191, 28.7.2023, p. 1).

EN 11 EN

reference implementation software which Member States and Eurojust may choose to

apply as their back-end system, free of charge. Eurojust should establish a case

management system for the processing of operational personal data, enabling the

management and coordination of investigations and prosecutions, the secure exchange

of information, the cross-checking of data to identify links between cases, and the

preservation and analysis of evidence. Access to the case management system should

be strictly limited to authorised persons within the limits provided for in this

Regulation. The decentralised IT system established under this Regulation is the same

technical infrastructure as referred to under Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the

European Parliament and of the Council32, Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the

European Parliament and of the Council, and Regulation (EU) 2024/3011 of the

European Parliament and of the Council33, which rely on the same network of e-

CODEX access points and reference implementation software. This Regulation should

not affect the use of that common decentralised IT system for the communication,

facilitation and exchanges in relation to judicial cooperation instruments under those

Regulations, thereby ensuring coherence and interoperability across the Union's digital

judicial cooperation architecture and avoiding the duplication of technical

infrastructure across different legal instruments.

(34) Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 sets out

harmonised rules for the protection and the free movement of personal data processed

for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal

offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and

the prevention of threats to public security. In order to ensure the same level of

protection for natural persons through legally enforceable rights throughout the Union

and to prevent divergences hampering the exchange of personal data between Eurojust

and competent authorities in Member States, the rules for the protection and the free

movement of operational personal data processed by Eurojust should be consistent

with Directive (EU) 2016/680. This Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the

European Parliament and of the Council35 should apply to the processing of personal

data by Eurojust, with the specific data protection rules of this Regulation taking

precedence as lex specialis over the general rules of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Those specific rules are consistent with the principles underpinning Regulation (EU)

2018/1725, as well as with the provisions of that Regulation relating to independent

supervision, remedies, liability and penalties.

(35) All processing of personal data by Eurojust within the framework of its competence

and for the fulfilment of its tasks should be considered as processing of operational

personal data. The processing of operational personal data by Eurojust should be

32 Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on the

digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal

matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L, 2023/2844, 27.12.2023). 33 Regulation (EU) 2024/3011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on the

transfer of proceedings in criminal matters (OJ L, 2024/3011, 18.12.2024). 34 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of

natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of

the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal

penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA

(OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). 35 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies,

offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and

Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39).

EN 12 EN

strictly limited to the categories of data listed in Annex II and should be subject to

strict time limits for storage linked to the conclusion of proceedings, acquittals and

final judicial decisions, with automated review mechanisms to ensure compliance. In

order to support Eurojust's expanded analytical and strategic functions, this Regulation

provides for the possibility of retaining operational personal data for a longer period

where strictly necessary for analytical and strategic purposes, subject to clear

conditions and robust data protection safeguards, and within a clear and legally certain

framework consistent with the applicable Union data protection rules. As Eurojust also

processes administrative personal data unrelated to criminal investigations, the

processing of such data should be subject to the general rules of Regulation (EU)

2018/1725. The data protection provisions of this Regulation do not affect the

applicable rules on the admissibility of personal data as evidence in criminal pre-trial

and court proceedings. Data processed by Eurojust should be stored in a European

cloud infrastructure so as to progressively ensure sovereign digital infrastructures and

cloud capabilities.

(36) The protection of the rights and freedoms of data subjects requires a clear attribution

of responsibilities for data protection under this Regulation. Member States should be

responsible for the accuracy of data they have transmitted to Eurojust and which have

been processed unaltered by Eurojust, for keeping such data up to date and for the

legality of transmitting those data to Eurojust. Eurojust should be responsible for the

accuracy of data provided by other data suppliers or resulting from its own analyses or

data collection activities. Eurojust should ensure that personal data are processed fairly

and lawfully, collected and processed for specific purposes, adequate, relevant and not

excessive in relation to those purposes, stored no longer than necessary, and processed

in a manner that ensures appropriate security and confidentiality.

(37) Appropriate safeguards for the storage of operational personal data for archiving

purposes in the public interest or for statistical purposes should be included in

Eurojust's rules of procedure. Where operational personal data are transmitted or

supplied to Eurojust by a Member State, the competent authority, the National

Member or the national correspondent for Eurojust should have the right to request the

rectification or erasure of those data in accordance with the applicable provisions of

this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

(38) A data subject should be able to exercise the right of access to operational personal

data relating to him or her which are processed by Eurojust, in accordance with

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. Such a request may be made at reasonable intervals, free

of charge, to Eurojust or to the national supervisory authority in the Member State of

the data subject's choice. Limitations to the right of access may apply where disclosure

would jeopardise an ongoing investigation or the safety of an individual, in accordance

with the conditions established by this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Access to operational personal data within Eurojust should be strictly limited to

National Members, their Deputies, authorised seconded national experts, designated

national system users and authorised Eurojust staff, within the limits provided for in

this Regulation.

(39) The person designated as Data Protection Officer of Eurojust should possess the

requisite expert knowledge in data protection law and practice, commensurate with the

data processing operations carried out by Eurojust and the level of protection required

for the personal data processed.

EN 13 EN

(40) In order to facilitate cooperation between the EDPS and national supervisory

authorities, the EDPS and national supervisory authorities should regularly meet

within the European Data Protection Board, in accordance with the rules on

coordinated supervision laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, without affecting

the independence of the EDPS or to its responsibility for supervision of Eurojust with

regard to data protection.

(41) As the first recipient on the territory of the Union of personal data provided by or

retrieved from third countries or international organisations, Eurojust should be

responsible for the accuracy of such data and should take all reasonable measures to

verify their accuracy upon receipt or when making them available to other authorities.

In exceptional cases, Eurojust should be able to extend the storage deadlines for

operational personal data in order to achieve its objectives, subject to the principle of

purpose limitation and following careful consideration of all interests at stake,

including those of the data subjects, and subject to oversight by the EDPS. Under the

applicable legal framework on data protection, Eurojust is subject to the general rules

on contractual and non-contractual liability applicable to Union institutions, bodies,

offices and agencies.

(42) Eurojust should maintain privileged relations with the European Judicial Network in

criminal matters, based on consultation and complementarity, in particular through the

members of each National Desk designated as contact points for the European Judicial

Network. The complementarity between the European Judicial Network and Eurojust

should be exercised in accordance with their respective mandates, with Eurojust being

competent for complex cases involving serious cross-border crime requiring active

coordination and possibly a joint prosecutorial strategy among multiple jurisdictions.

A system for the allocation of cases between Eurojust and the European Judicial

Network (EJN) should ensure that Eurojust focuses its resources on the most complex

cross-border investigations of serious crimes, characterised in particular by parallel

investigations or prosecutions in different Member States, conflicts of jurisdiction, the

involvement of more than two legal frameworks or judicial authorities, links with

organised crime or exceptional operational urgency or strategic importance at Union

level.

(43) Among decisions regarding the establishment of Eurojust's internal structures, the

Management Board should determine the institutional and administrative relationships

between Eurojust and the networks it hosts, in particular the networks set up by

Council Decisions 2002/494/JHA, 2007/845/JHA and 2008/852/JHA and by the

Council conclusions establishing the European Judicial Organised Crime Network of

14 June 2024.

(44) Eurojust should establish and maintain close cooperation with Europol, with a view to

ensuring the coherent and coordinated exercise of their respective mandates and

avoiding duplication of effort, and to establishing a continuum between law

enforcement intelligence and judicial coordination that enables the swift translation of

criminal intelligence into timely and well-coordinated judicial investigations and

prosecutions. The combination of Europol's criminal intelligence and analytical

capabilities and Eurojust's judicial coordination functions allows the competent

authorities to detect cross-border criminal patterns more quickly and to respond

effectively to emerging criminal threats. A working arrangement, subject to regular

review and updated upon request of and in consultation with the Commission, should

set out the practical modalities of that cooperation and consolidate established

cooperation practices, including the practical arrangements for mutual indirect access

EN 14 EN

to information respectively held by Eurojust and Europol through an optimised

automated hit/no-hit system. That system should be optimised through technical

measures to improve cross-checking capabilities. The possibility of establishing joint

operational platforms with the consent of the competent national authorities should

also be provided for, as should the participation of Europol representatives in meetings

of the College where matters of common interest are discussed, so as to enhance

operational discussions by bringing additional expertise and information to case-

related deliberations. Any access by Europol to data held by Eurojust should be

limited by technical means to information falling within the respective mandates of

those Union agencies. Eurojust and Europol should keep each other informed of any

activity involving the financing of joint investigation teams.

(45) Eurojust should establish and maintain a close relationship with the EPPO, based on

mutual cooperation within their respective mandates and competences. Eurojust

should be entrusted with an explicit mandate to provide reinforced support in cases

falling within the EPPO's competence, at the request of the EPPO, in particular in

cases which require investigative measures or other forms of cooperation in Member

States which do not participate in enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the

EPPO or in cases involving third countries or requiring coordination between

investigations conducted by the EPPO and those conducted by competent national

authorities of Member States that do not participate on the EPPO. Stronger

coordination between the two bodies should help avoid duplication of effort, facilitate

cooperation with non-participating Member States and third countries, and support

comprehensive case handling in investigations with a cross-border dimension. The

participation of EPPO representatives in meetings of the College where matters of

common interest are discussed should be provided for, so as to enhance operational

coordination and mutual awareness. The automated hit/no-hit system between Eurojust

and the EPPO should also be optimised through technical measures to improve

information exchange. Eurojust should without undue delay report to the EPPO any

criminal conduct in respect of which the EPPO could exercise its competence and

should notify the Member States, unless the EPPO considers that such a notification

would affect the effectiveness or the confidentiality of its investigations. The practical

arrangements for cooperation between Eurojust and the EPPO should be laid down in

a working arrangement, which should be subject to regular review.

(46) To contribute to effective protection of the Union's financial interests, Eurojust should

cooperate with the other anti-fraud actors involved in the protection of the Union’s

financial interests, such as the EPPO, Europol, OLAF, AMLA and the EU Customs

Authority to addresses matters relevant to the coordination of anti-fraud activities,

such as facilitating the exchange of information, the undertaking of coordinated or

joint actions, exchanging on emerging criminal trends in activities affecting the

financial interests of the Union, the sharing of best practices including matters relating

to information technology security and development, establishing criteria for common

reporting or coordinating training activities or general developments concerning the

anti-fraud architecture of the Union. Being a relevant actor in the protection of the

Union financial interests, Eurojust should participate actively in such joint cooperation

activities.

(47) To ensure that the report to be submitted each year by the Commission pursuant to

Article 325(5) TFUE includes a comprehensive overview of the measures taken to

counter fraud affecting the Union’s financial interests, Eurojust should contribute to

EN 15 EN

the preparation of that report. That contribution should cover the results achieved and

the activities carried out to that end by Eurojust.

(48) Eurojust should be able to exchange personal data with Union institutions, bodies,

offices and agencies to the extent necessary for the fulfilment of its tasks, with full

respect for the protection of privacy and other fundamental rights and freedoms.

Eurojust should enhance its cooperation with competent authorities of third countries

and organs of international organisations on the basis of a cooperation strategy drawn

up every four years in consultation with the Commission. Working arrangements

between Eurojust and the competent authorities of a third country may take the form

of strategic working arrangements, which are independent from but often precede an

international agreement concluded by the Union pursuant to Article 218 TFEU, or of

arrangements implementing such an international agreement. Where relevant,

cooperation commitments with financial implications should be included in

international agreements concluded by the Union with third countries to ensure

adequate resourcing of operational cooperation. In order to facilitate cooperation and

build mutual trust with international partners, the legal framework governing the

posting of liaison magistrates to third countries should be clarified, including as

regards their tasks, data protection obligations, and the conditions under which they

may exchange operational personal data with the competent authorities of the third

country. Where Eurojust identifies an operational need for cooperation with a third

country or an international organisation, it should be able to draw the attention of the

Commission to the need for an adequacy decision or a recommendation for the

opening of negotiations on an international agreement pursuant to Article 218 TFEU.

(49) Even in the absence of an international agreement, Eurojust should establish and

maintain operational relations with third countries considered to be of strategic

importance for judicial cooperation, in particular EU candidate countries and potential

candidates, where EU-funded projects aim to provide operational support and

assistance, equipping those partners with EU judicial cooperation and working

methods. To that end, resident contact points from priority third countries should be

hosted by Eurojust on the basis of a working arrangement and following appointment

by the Management Board, providing reliable and stable channels for judicial

exchanges and reducing delays in the handling of cooperation requests. The role of

those contact points is to expedite, coordinate or facilitate the execution of requests for

judicial cooperation, to support communication and coordination between Eurojust,

Member States and the competent authorities of the third country concerned, and to

facilitate the participation of those authorities in coordination meetings and joint

investigation teams supported by Eurojust. The access of those contact points to the

Eurojust case management system should be strictly limited to data relevant to the

performance of their functions, and any exchange of operational personal data should

only take place on the basis of the derogations for specific situations provided for in

this Regulation. Specific organisational arrangements should be made to ensure that

the integration of such actors within Eurojust is accompanied by appropriate

information security and data protection safeguards.

(50) The participation of liaison prosecutors seconded to Eurojust from third countries or

from international organisations in meetings of the College where matters of common

interest are discussed should be provided for, so as to strengthen operational

relationships and facilitate direct exchanges between practitioners.

(51) To guarantee the full autonomy and independence of Eurojust, it should be granted an

autonomous budget with revenue coming essentially from a contribution from the

EN 16 EN

general budget of the Union, except as regards the salaries and emoluments of the

National Members, Deputies and Assistants, which are borne by their respective

Member State. The Union budgetary procedure should be applicable as far as the

Union contribution and other subsidies chargeable to the general budget of the Union

are concerned. The auditing of accounts should be undertaken by the Court of

Auditors and approved by the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European

Parliament. Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of

the Council36 should apply to Eurojust.

(52) In order to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities affecting the

financial interests of the Union or serious matters relating to the discharge of

professional duties constituting a dereliction of the obligations of officials and other

servants of the Union liable to result in disciplinary or, as the case may be, criminal

proceedings, Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and

of the Council37, as amended, should apply to Eurojust without restriction, and OLAF

should be able to carry out investigations, including on-the-spot checks and

inspections. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the EPPO is competent to

investigate and prosecute fraud and other illegal activities affecting the financial

interests of the Union as provided for in Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European

Parliament and of the Council38.

(53) The College should be provided with detailed and comprehensive expert advice on

fundamental rights that may be affected by the agency's activities. To that end,

Eurojust staff should include at least one expert responsible for supporting Eurojust in

safeguarding respect for fundamental rights in all its activities and tasks, in particular

its operational activities, including the exchange of personal data with third countries.

It should be possible to designate a member of Eurojust's staff who has received

specialist training in fundamental rights law and practice. That designated expert

should cooperate closely with the Data Protection Officer within the scope of their

respective competences. To the extent that data protection matters are concerned, full

responsibility should lie with the Data Protection Officer.

(54) In order to increase the transparency and democratic oversight of Eurojust, it is

necessary to provide a mechanism pursuant to Article 85(1) TFEU for the joint

evaluation of Eurojust's activities by the European Parliament and national

parliaments. That evaluation should take place in the framework of an

interparliamentary committee meeting, with the participation of members of the

competent committees of the European Parliament and of the national parliaments, and

should fully respect Eurojust's independence as regards actions to be taken in specific

operational cases and as regards the obligation of discretion and confidentiality. It is

appropriate to evaluate the application of this Regulation regularly. Not later than five

years after the entry into force of this Regulation, and every five years thereafter, the

36 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024

on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024). 37 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September

2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation

(Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/2030

of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 317, 23.11.2016, p. 1) and Regulation (EU, Euratom)

2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 437, 28.12.2020, p. 49). 38 Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight

against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/1371/oj).

EN 17 EN

Commission should evaluate Eurojust's performance in relation to its objectives,

mandate, tasks, governance and location, including an assessment every ten years of

whether the continuation of the Agency remains justified.

(55) Eurojust's functioning should be transparent in accordance with Article 15(3) TFEU.

Specific provisions on how the right of public access to documents is ensured should

be adopted by the Management Board. The transparency obligation should apply to

Eurojust in a manner that does not jeopardise the obligation of confidentiality in its

operational work. Administrative inquiries conducted by the European Ombudsman

should respect that obligation. In order to increase Eurojust's transparency vis-à-vis

Union citizens and to strengthen its accountability, Eurojust should publish on its

website a list of the members of its Management Board and Executive Board and,

where appropriate, summaries of the outcomes of the meetings of the Management

Board, while respecting applicable data protection requirements.

(56) The necessary provisions regarding accommodation for Eurojust in the Netherlands,

where it has its seat, and the specific rules applicable to Eurojust staff and members of

their families should be laid down in a Headquarters Agreement between Eurojust and

the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Given that this Regulation establishes a Management

Board that was not provided for under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, the Headquarters

Agreement should be amended or replaced to ensure that its personal scope covers

members of the Management Board and their families. The same should apply, where

appropriate, to resident contact points posted from third countries and their families.

The host Member State should provide the best possible conditions to ensure the

effective functioning of Eurojust, including multilingual, European-oriented schooling

and appropriate transport connections, so as to attract high-quality human resources

from as wide a geographical area as possible.

(57) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the setting up of an entity responsible

for supporting and strengthening coordination and cooperation between the judicial

authorities of the Member States in relation to serious crime affecting two or more

Member States or requiring prosecution on common bases, cannot be sufficiently

achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the

action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance

with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU. In accordance with the

principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go

beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(58) [In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United

Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed

to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without affecting Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland

is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to

its application.] OR [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of

the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice,

annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland has notified, by letter of [date], its wish

to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.]

(59) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark,

annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of

this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

(60) The EDPS was consulted in accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725

and delivered an opinion on [date].

EN 18 EN

(61) This Regulation fully respects the fundamental rights and freedoms and observes the

principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the

European Union, in particular the right to the protection of personal data and the right

to privacy as protected by Articles 8 and 7 of the Charter respectively, as well as by

Article 16 TFEU, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial under Article 47 of

the Charter, the presumption of innocence under Article 48 of the Charter, and the

rights of victims of crime.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

EN 19 EN

CHAPTER I

GENERAL PROVISIONS, OBJECTIVES AND TASKS

Article 1

Subject matter

1. This Regulation establishes the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice

Cooperation ('Eurojust').

2. Eurojust as established by this Regulation shall replace and succeed the agency

established by Regulation (EU) 2018/1727.

3. This Regulation lays down rules concerning the structure, operation, field of action

and tasks of Eurojust.

4. Eurojust shall support and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national

investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious crime which Eurojust

is competent to deal with in accordance with Article 5, where that crime affects two

or more Member States, or requires prosecution on common bases, including where

it has repercussions at Union level.

Article 2

Legal status

1. Eurojust shall be an agency of the Union and shall have legal personality.

2. In each of the Member States, Eurojust shall enjoy the most extensive legal capacity

accorded to legal persons under national law. It may, in particular, acquire and

dispose of movable and immovable property and be party to legal proceedings.

3. Eurojust shall be represented by an Administrative Director.

Article 3

Seat

The seat of Eurojust shall be in The Hague, the Netherlands.

Article 4

Tasks

Eurojust shall perform the following tasks:

(a) assist the competent national authorities and competent organs of international

organisations in ensuring the best possible coordination of investigations and

prosecutions, including by facilitating and supporting the issuing and execution

of requests for, and decisions on, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, in

particular those based on instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual

recognition;

EN 20 EN

(b) receive, collect, store, process, analyse and exchange information, including

operational personal data, to the extent necessary for the performance of its

tasks, with competent national authorities of the Member States, Union

institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, third countries, international

organisations, and relevant private parties, in accordance with this Regulation

and applicable data protection rules;

(c) cross-check information stored in relevant databases to identify links between

cross-border investigations and inform the Member States concerned, or where

appropriate, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), thereof;

(d) collect, preserve, analyse and store evidence of core international crimes and

related criminal offences and facilitate the exchange of such evidence with, or

its direct availability to, competent national authorities of the Member States

and third countries, and competent organs of international criminal courts and

tribunals;

(e) support competent national authorities in activities aimed at tracing, freezing,

confiscating and recovering criminal assets in cross-border cases, including

post-conviction and non-conviction-based confiscation in proceedings in

criminal matters;

(f) support competent national authorities of the Member States in establishing

and maintaining cooperative relations with third countries and international

organisations with a view to facilitating judicial cooperation in criminal

matters;

(g) cooperate closely with Union bodies, offices and agencies, in particular:

i. with the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

(Europol), including through mutual involvement and coordination of

operational activities;

ii. with the EPPO, by supporting its investigations for which investigative

measures or any other cooperation are required in Member States which

do not participate in enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the

EPPO39 or third countries, and cases requiring coordination between

investigations conducted by the EPPO and those conducted by competent

authorities of the Member States not participating in the EPPO, including

through support to the setting up of joint investigation teams;

iii. with other Union bodies, offices and agencies which, within their

respective mandates, gather information relevant to the performance of

Eurojust’s tasks;

(h) cooperate with, coordinate and support networks and bodies active in judicial

cooperation in criminal matters, including by hosting them where appropriate;

(i) assist competent national authorities in upholding the rights of victims in the

context of cross-border criminal proceedings;

(j) collect and analyse specialised knowledge, in particular through the

examination of information stored in the Eurojust case management system and

39 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the

establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office ('the EPPO Regulation') (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p.

1).

EN 21 EN

relevant national, international and Union case-law, and by developing best

practices and providing advice within its mandate, where appropriate in the

context of Eurojust Centres of Expertise in criminal matters (ECE);

(k) provide, upon request, analytical findings and technical advice based on its

casework expertise to Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies;

(l) provide, where necessary, technical, operational, analytical, legal, financial and

strategic assistance in matters within its mandate;

(m) cooperate in a structured way and on a regular basis, including by concluding

bilateral or multilateral working arrangements governing the modalities of such

cooperation, with the anti-fraud actors involved in the protection of the Union’s

financial interests, such as the EPPO, Europol, OLAF, AMLA and the EU

Customs Authority.

Article 5

Competence of Eurojust

1. Eurojust shall be competent in respect of the following offences, including where

such offences are committed in connection with, or form part of, activities having a

hybrid dimension:

(a) the forms of serious crime listed in Annex I;

(b) criminal offences for which the EPPO is competent;

(c) criminal offences committed in order to procure the means of committing, to

facilitate or commit, or to ensure the impunity of those committing, the serious

crimes listed in Annex I.

2. Eurojust shall act, at the request of a competent national authority, a competent organ

of an international organisation, the EPPO within the limits of its competence, or on

its own initiative.

3. In respect of forms of crime other than those listed in Annex I, Eurojust may assist

investigations and prosecutions at the request of a competent national authority of the

Member States.

4. In relation to criminal offences for which the EPPO is competent, Eurojust shall

exercise its competence:

(a) in cases involving Member States which do not participate in enhanced

cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO, at the request of those Member

States or of the EPPO;

(b) in cases involving Member States which participate in enhanced cooperation

on the establishment of the EPPO, where the EPPO has decided not to exercise

its competence.

5. Eurojust shall be competent to assist the EPPO also in cases involving third countries

or where coordination is required between investigations carried out by the EPPO

and investigations carried out by competent authorities of the Member States which

do not participate in enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO.

6. Eurojust may assist with investigations and prosecutions affecting:

(a) at least two Member States;

EN 22 EN

(b) one Member State, where the case has repercussions at Union level;

(c) at least one Member State and a third country or an international organisation,

provided that any of the following conditions apply:

i. an adequacy decision was adopted in accordance with Article 36 of

Directive (EU) 2016/680, or an international agreement, a cooperation

agreement or a working arrangement has been concluded with that third

country or international organisation;

ii. a contact point has been designated in that third country or international

organisation; or

iii. there is an essential interest in providing such assistance;

(d) two or more third countries or international organisations, where the case may

have repercussions at Union level, provided that an adequacy decision was

adopted in accordance with Article 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, an

international agreement, a cooperation agreement or working arrangement has

been concluded with each of them, and subject to prior approval by the

College.

EN 23 EN

CHAPTER II

ORGANISATION OF EUROJUST

SECTION I

STRUCTURE

Article 6

Structure of Eurojust

1. Eurojust shall consist of a management structure and an operational structure.

2. The management structure shall comprise:

(a) a Management Board, which shall exercise the functions set out in Article 10;

(b) an Executive Board, which shall exercise the functions set out in Article 13;

(c) an Administrative Director, who shall exercise the responsibilities set out in

Article 15.

3. The operational structure shall comprise:

(a) the National Members, who shall exercise the powers set out in Article 18;

(b) the College, which shall exercise the powers set out in Article 20.

SECTION II

THE MANAGEMENT BOARD

Article 7

Composition of the Management Board

1. The Management Board shall be composed of one representative from each Member

State and one representative of the Commission.

2. The Management Board shall also include:

(a) The President of Eurojust, without the right to vote;

(b) The Administrative Director, without the right to vote.

3. Each member of the Management Board shall have an alternate. The alternate shall

represent the member concerned in their absence. Neither the Member of the

Management Board nor their alternate representing a Member State shall be the

National Member or any other member of the National Desk of that Member State

seconded to Eurojust.

4. Members of the Management Board and their alternates shall be appointed on the

basis of their expertise in the field of criminal justice, taking into account their

relevant level of seniority and experience, including in managerial, administrative

and budgetary matters.

EN 24 EN

5. All parties represented in the Management Board shall endeavour to minimise

turnover of the representatives, in order to ensure continuity of the Board’s work. All

parties shall aim to achieve gender balance in the Management Board.

6. The term of office for members and their alternates shall be four years, renewable

once.

Article 8

Chairperson of the Management Board

1. The Management Board shall elect a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson from

among members with voting rights by a two-thirds majority of those members. The

Deputy Chairperson shall automatically replace the Chairperson where the latter is

prevented from attending their duties.

2. The term of office of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson shall be four

years, renewable once. Where their membership of the Management Board ends at

any time during their term of office, their term of office shall automatically expire on

that date.

Article 9

Meetings of the Management Board

1. The Chairperson shall convene the meetings of the Management Board.

2. The President and Administrative Director of Eurojust shall take part in the

deliberations, without the right to vote.

3. The Management Board shall hold at least two meetings per year. In addition, it shall

meet on the initiative of its Chairperson, at the request of the Commission, or at the

request of at least one third of its members.

4. The Management Board may invite any person whose opinion may be of interest to

attend its meetings as an observer.

5. Where necessary, the Management Board may hold joint meetings with the

Management Board of Europol.

6. The members of the Management Board and their alternates may, subject to the

Rules of Procedure of the Management Board, be assisted at the meetings by

advisers or experts.

7. Where a matter of confidentiality or conflict of interests is on the agenda, the

Management Board shall discuss and decide on that matter without the presence of

the member concerned. Detailed rules for the application of this provision may be

laid down in the rules of procedure.

Article 10

Functions of the Management Board

1. The Management Board shall provide the strategic orientations for Eurojust's

activities and shall, in particular:

EN 25 EN

(a) adopt the draft single programming document referred to in Article 12 before

its submission to the Commission for its opinion;

(b) taking into account the opinion of the Commission, adopt the single

programming document by a majority of two-thirds of members with voting

rights;

(c) adopt the consolidated annual activity report and the annual and multi-annual

work programme;

(d) adopt its rules of procedure as well as the rules of procedure of the Executive

Board;

(e) adopt rules for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in

respect of its members, the National Members and the members of the National

Desks;

(f) adopt the security rules;

(g) exercise, the appointing authority powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on

the Appointing Authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other

Servants40 on the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of

Employment with respect to the staff of Eurojust, in accordance with paragraph

2;

(h) adopt implementing rules for giving effect to the Staff Regulations and the

Conditions of Employment of Other Servants in accordance with Article

110(2) of the Staff Regulations;

(i) appoint the Administrative Director and, where relevant, extend their term of

office or remove him or her from office in accordance with Article 14;

(j) appoint Liaison officers posted to third countries referred to in Article 61;

(k) appoint and dismiss an accounting officer and a Data Protection Officer, who

shall be functionally independent in the performance of their duties;

(l) adopt the Security Plan, the Business Continuity Plan and the Disaster

Recovery Plan;

(m) adopt a decision laying down rules on the secondment of national experts to

Eurojust referred to in Article 72;

(n) adopt, by a majority of two-thirds of members with voting rights, the annual

budget of Eurojust and exercise other budgetary functions in respect of

Eurojust’s budget pursuant to Chapter VI;

(o) adopt the financial rules applicable to Eurojust in accordance with Article 69;

(p) adopt the cooperation strategy referred to in Article 60, after consulting the

College;

(q) authorise the conclusion of working arrangements in accordance with Article

54, paragraph 3;

40 Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff

Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities

and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p.

1).

EN 26 EN

(r) adopt decisions regarding the establishment of Eurojust's internal structures

and, where necessary, their modification taking into consideration Eurojust’s

activity needs and having regard to sound budgetary management;

(s) adopt any other non-operational decision which is not expressly attributed to

the Executive Board or the Administrative Director in accordance with this

Regulation.

2. The Management Board shall adopt, in accordance with Article 110 (2) of the Staff

Regulations, a decision based on Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and on Article

6 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, delegating relevant appointing

authority powers to the Administrative Director and defining the conditions under

which that delegation may be suspended. The Administrative Director shall be

authorised to sub-delegate those powers.

3. Where exceptional circumstances so require, the Management Board may, by way of

a decision adopted by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights,

temporarily suspend the delegation of the appointing authority powers to the

Administrative Director and those sub-delegated by the latter and exercise them itself

or delegate them to one of its members or to a staff member other than the

Administrative Director.

Article 11

Voting rules of the Management Board

1. Unless otherwise provided in this Regulation, the Management Board shall take

decisions by majority of its members with voting rights.

2. In the event the Commission raises serious concerns regarding a proposal for a

decision presented to the Management Board on matters related to the Commission

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/71541 and the Staff Regulations of Officials and the

Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, the

Management Board shall postpone the adoption of the decision. Within 15 days, the

Management Board shall re-examine and adopt it, possibly amended, in second

reading either with a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights, including

the Commission representative, or by four-fifth majority of its members with voting

rights of the representatives of the Member States.

3. Each member with voting rights shall have one vote. In the absence of a member

with the right to vote, their alternate shall be entitled to exercise that right to vote.

4. The Chairperson shall take part in the voting.

5. The President and Administrative Director of Eurojust shall not take part in the

voting.

6. Where the President raises serious concerns regarding a decision under Article 10(1)

points (a), (c), (p) and (r), acting on the basis of a decision of the College adopted by

consensus, the Management Board shall give those concerns full consideration and,

where appropriate, re-examine the draft decision before proceeding to adoption.

41 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 of 18 December 2018 on the framework financial

regulation for the bodies set up under the TFEU and Euratom Treaty and referred to in Article 70 of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 122, 10.5.2019,

p. 1).

EN 27 EN

7. The Management Board's rules of procedure shall establish more detailed voting

arrangements, in particular the circumstances in which a member may act on behalf

of another member.

Article 12

Annual and multi-annual programming

1. By 30 November each year, the Management Board shall adopt a single

programming document containing annual and multi-annual programming, based on

a draft prepared by the Administrative Director and reviewed by the Executive

Board, taking into account the opinion of the Commission. The Management Board

shall forward the programming document to the European Parliament, the Council,

and the Commission.

2. The programming document shall become definitive after final adoption of the

general budget of the Union and shall be adjusted accordingly, where necessary.

3. The annual work programme shall comprise detailed objectives and expected results

including performance indicators. It shall also contain a description of the actions to

be financed and an indication of the financial and human resources allocated to each

action, in accordance with the principles of activity-based budgeting and

management. The annual work programme shall be coherent with the multi-annual

work programme referred to in paragraph 4. It shall clearly indicate which tasks have

been added, changed or deleted in comparison with the previous financial year.

4. The Management Board shall amend the adopted annual work programme when a

new task is assigned to Eurojust. Any substantial amendment to the annual work

programme shall be adopted by the same procedure as the initial annual work

programme. The Management Board may delegate to the Administrative Director the

power to make non-substantial amendments to the annual work programme.

5. The multi-annual work programme shall set out overall strategic programming

including objectives, the strategy for cooperation with the authorities of third

countries and organs of international organisations referred to in Article 60, expected

results and performance indicators. It shall also set out resource programming

including multi-annual budget and staff. The resource programming shall be updated

annually. The strategic programming shall be updated where appropriate, and in

particular to address the outcome of the evaluation referred to in Article 74.

SECTION III

EXECUTIVE BOARD

Article 13

Executive Board

1. The Management Board shall be assisted by an Executive Board.

2. The Executive board shall be chaired by the President of Eurojust.

3. The Executive Board shall:

EN 28 EN

(a) prepare the decisions to be adopted by the Management Board and monitor the

implementation of the decisions adopted by it;

(b) review the draft annual budget, the draft annual work programme and the draft

consolidated annual activity report prepared by the Administrative Director;

(c) ensure, together with the Management Board, adequate follow-up to the

findings and recommendations resulting from internal or external audit reports

and evaluations, to the findings of investigations conducted by the European

Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)42, and to the outcomes, including judicial decisions,

of investigations, conducted by the EPPO, in accordance with applicable Union

law;

(d) without affecting the responsibilities of the Administrative Director, assist and

advise him or her in the implementation of the decisions of the Management

Board, with a view to reinforcing supervision of administrative and budgetary

management;

(e) adopt reports, policy papers, guidelines for the benefit of competent national

authorities and opinions pertaining to the work of Eurojust, subject to prior

consultation of the College in exceptional cases where the matter is of essential

operational relevance;

(f) undertake any other tasks delegated by the Management Board.

4. The Executive Board shall adopt administrative decisions, including:

(a) an anti-fraud strategy proportionate to the fraud risks, taking into account the

costs and benefits of the measures to be implemented and based on a draft

prepared by the Administrative Director;

(b) follow-up to audit reports, including those of the European Data Protection

Supervisor (EDPS)43;

(c) strategies related to the relations with Union institutions, budgetary planning

and negotiations, including in the context of the multiannual financial

framework;

(d) the confirmation of liaison prosecutors as well as of contact points posted at

Eurojust;

(e) the initiation of negotiations for the conclusion of working arrangements.

5. Where necessary on grounds of urgency, the Executive Board may adopt provisional

decisions on behalf of the Management Board, in particular in matters relating to

administrative and budgetary management, including the suspension of the

delegation of appointing authority powers. Such decisions shall be submitted to the

Management Board for confirmation at its next meeting.

42 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September

2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation

(Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1). 43 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies,

offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and

Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39).

EN 29 EN

6. The Executive Board shall be composed of the following members with the right to

vote:

(a) the President of Eurojust,

(b) the Vice-President,

(c) two members appointed by the Management Board from among its voting

members,

(d) one representative of the Commission.

7. The Administrative Director shall participate in the meetings of the Executive Board

without the right to vote and may delegate their participation as necessary.

8. The Executive Board may also invite as observers without the right to vote other

participants for specific agenda items.

9. The term of office of the members of the Management Board serving on the

Executive Board shall be two years. That term shall expire before its end where the

member concerned ceases to be a member of the Management Board.

10. The Executive Board shall meet at least once every month. It shall also meet at the

initiative of the President or at the request of its members.

11. The Executive Board shall take its decisions by a majority of its members.

SECTION IV

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR

Article 14

Appointment, dismissal, and extension of the term of office

1. The Administrative Director shall be engaged as a temporary agent of Eurojust under

Article 2 point (a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.

2. The Administrative Director shall be appointed by the Management Board on the

basis of merit and documented skills from a list of candidates proposed by the

Executive Board, following an open and transparent selection procedure aimed at

ensuring the broadest possible participation of candidates and an appropriate gender

balance.

3. For the purpose of signing the contract of the Administrative Director, Eurojust shall

be represented by the Chairperson of the Management Board.

4. The term of office of the Administrative Director shall be five years. Prior to the end

of that period, the Executive Board shall carry out an assessment that takes into

account an evaluation of the performance of the Administrative Director and

Eurojust’s future tasks and challenges.

5. The Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Board which takes

into account the assessment referred to in paragraph 4, may extend the term of office

of the Administrative Director once for no more than five years.

EN 30 EN

6. An Administrative Director whose term of office has been extended may not

participate in another selection procedure for the same post at the end of the overall

period.

7. The Administrative Director may be removed from office only upon a decision of the

Management Board acting on a proposal from the Executive Board.

8. The Management Board shall adopt decisions on appointment, extension of the term

of office or removal from office of the Administrative Director with a two-thirds

majority of its members with voting rights.

Article 15

Tasks and responsibilities of the Administrative Director

1. The Administrative Director shall manage Eurojust and shall be accountable to the

Management Board. The Administrative Director shall be assisted in the fulfilment

of their duties by the staff of Eurojust, in accordance with Article 71.

2. The Administrative Director shall be independent in the performance of their tasks

and shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government nor from any other

body.

3. The Administrative Director shall be the legal representative of Eurojust.

4. The Administrative Director shall be responsible for the implementation of the tasks

assigned to Eurojust by this Regulation. In particular, the Administrative Director

shall be responsible for:

(a) ensuring the day-to-day administration of Eurojust;

(b) implementing decisions adopted by the Management Board and the Executive

Board;

(c) ensuring compliance with the financial rules of Eurojust;

(d) preparing the draft single programming document and submitting it to the

Executive Board for review and to the Management Board for adoption after

consulting the Commission;

(e) implementing the single programming document and reporting to the

Management Board on its implementation;

(f) preparing Eurojust's consolidated annual activity report and presenting it to the

Management Board for assessment and adoption;

(g) supporting the Chairperson of the Management Board in preparing

Management Board meetings and supporting the President of Eurojust in

preparing the Executive Board meetings and the College meetings;

(h) developing an action plan to address findings and recommendations resulting

from internal or external audit reports and evaluations, on the findings of

investigations conducted by OLAF, and on the outcomes, including judicial

decisions, of investigations conducted by the EPPO, in accordance with

applicable Union law, and report on progress twice a year to the Commission

and regularly to the Management Board and the Executive Board;

(i) protecting the financial interests of the Union by applying preventive measures

against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities, without affecting the

EN 31 EN

competence of OLAF and the EPPO, and, if irregularities are detected, by

recovering amounts wrongly paid;

(j) preparing strategies on anti-fraud measures, efficiency gains and synergies, a

strategy for cooperation with third countries and international organisations

and a strategy for the organisational management and internal control systems,

for Eurojust and presenting it to the Management Board for approval;

(k) preparing draft financial rules applicable to Eurojust for adoption by the

Management Board;

(l) preparing the Eurojust's draft statement of estimates of revenue and

expenditure and implementing its budget for adoption by the Management

Board;

(m) promoting diversity and gender balance as regards the recruitment of

Eurojust’s staff.

SECTION V

NATIONAL MEMBERS

Article 16

Status of National Members

1. Eurojust shall have one National Member seconded by each Member State in

accordance with its legal system. That National Member shall have their regular

place of work at the seat of Eurojust.

2. The National Members shall:

(a) be active members of the public prosecution service or judiciary of their

Member State;

(b) possess the qualifications required for appointment to high prosecutorial or

judicial office in their respective Member States, and have relevant practical

experience of national legal systems, or in relevant international or Union

bodies, and of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and

(c) have at least the powers referred to in Article 18 in order to be able to fulfil

their tasks.

3. The terms of office of the National Members shall be five years, renewable once. In

cases where a Deputy to the National Member is unable to act on behalf of a

National Member or is unable to substitute for a National Member, the National

Member shall remain in office upon expiry of their term of office until the renewal of

their term or their replacement, subject to the consent of the Member State

concerned.

4. Each National Member shall be supported by a National Desk as referred to in

Article 17.

EN 32 EN

Article 17

National Desks

1. Each National Desk shall consist of the National Member, at least one Deputy to the

National Member and one Assistant. The Deputy shall have their regular place of

work at the seat of Eurojust. Where a Member State so decides, the Assistant may

have their regular place of work in the Member State concerned.

2. The Deputy shall, under the applicable national law, have the same status, powers

and access rights as the National Member. The Deputy shall be able to act on behalf

of, or substitute for, the National Member. The terms of office of the Deputies shall

be five years, renewable once.

3. An Assistant may also act on behalf of, or substitute for, the National Member where

he or she has a status referred to in Article 16, paragraph 2.

4. Additional Deputies or Assistants may support the National Member. Where

necessary, and subject to the agreement of the College, they may have their regular

place of work at the seat of Eurojust. Member States shall notify the President of

Eurojust and the Commission of the appointment of National Members, Deputies and

Assistants.

5. The salaries and emoluments of the National Members, Deputies and Assistants shall

be borne by their Member State, without affecting Article 24.

6. Each National Desk shall be supported by at least one seconded national expert.

Seconded national experts shall have the status of a prosecutor, a judge or a

representative of a judicial authority with competences equivalent to those of a

prosecutor or judge under their national law.

7. Member States may assign additional staff to the National Desk for short-term

operational assignments, including trainees from the European Judicial Training

Network.

8. Seconded national experts and other additional staff shall be subject to the authority

of the National Member in the exercise of tasks related to Eurojust’s operational

functions.

9. National Desks shall be supported by authorised Eurojust staff. The number of

authorised Eurojust staff allocated to each national desk and their job assignments

shall be determined by the Administrative Director after consultations with the

National Member.

10. At least one member of each National Desk shall be designated as contact point for

the European Judicial Network44 in order to assist in determining whether a request

should be handled with the assistance of Eurojust or the European Judicial Network.

11. The National Member, the Deputy, an Assistant entitled to replace the National

Member, or a seconded national expert shall be available to receive and process

urgent requests at all times, including 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in order to

ensure that Eurojust is able to fulfil its tasks in urgent cases without delay.

44 Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network (OJ L 348,

24.12.2008, p. 130).

EN 33 EN

12. Where members of national desks act within the framework of Eurojust's operational

functions, the relevant expenditure related to those activities shall be regarded as

operational expenditure.

Article 18

Powers of the National Members

1. The National Member shall have the power to:

(a) open, register and manage cases in the Eurojust Case Management System;

(b) directly contact, consult and exchange operational information and evidence

with any competent national authority of their Member State, as well as with

any relevant Union body, office or agency, including the EPPO and Europol;

(c) directly contact, consult and exchange operational information and evidence

with competent national authorities of third countries and competent organs of

international organisations, in accordance with the international commitments

of their Member State and in accordance with data protection rules;

(d) facilitate or otherwise support the issuing or execution of any request for

judicial cooperation or mutual recognition;

(e) authorise, on the basis of all relevant information available, including, where

appropriate, input from the Data Protection Officer, the transfer of operational

personal data necessary for the purposes of a specific investigation in which

their Member State is involved, in accordance with Articles 94b, 94c and 94d

of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725; where the operational personal data to be

transferred have been provided by more than one Member State in the context

of that investigation, the authorisation shall be granted by each National

Member of all the Member States that provided those data;

(f) organise coordination meetings or coordination centres;

(g) participate in joint investigation teams and, where appropriate, initiate or

facilitate their establishment and operation, including by signing JIT

agreements;

(h) participate in joint operational platforms, ECE and judicial coordination

platforms;

(i) where appropriate, participate in operational task forces and Europol

operational meetings;

(j) ask the competent national authorities of their Member States to agree to the

establishment of coordination mechanisms, including joint operational

platforms, with Europol as referred to in Article 57, paragraph 5;

(k) ask the competent national authorities of their Member State to undertake an

investigation or prosecution of specific acts, or to undertake a specific act of

criminal procedure or any other measure justified for the purposes of an

investigation or prosecution;

(l) assist in the identification, prevention and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction,

including by issuing reasoned opinions, by inviting the competent national

authorities to accept that one of them is the best placed to prosecute, and by

facilitating the transfer of proceedings.

EN 34 EN

2. With the agreement of the competent national authority and in accordance with

national law, National Members may:

(a) issue or execute any request for judicial cooperation or mutual recognition,

including:

i. order, request or execute investigative measures, as provided for in

Directive 2014/41/EU;

ii. issue, request or execute freezing orders, as provided for in Regulation

(EU) 2018/1805;

iii. issue a European Production Order or a European Preservation Order, as

provided for in Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament

and of the Council45;

(b) request their national Asset Recovery Offices to provide information on

instrumentalities, proceeds or property which are or might become the object of

a freezing or confiscation order and to take immediate action until a freezing

order is issued, as provided for in Directive (EU) 2024/126046.

3. In urgent cases where it is not possible to contact the competent national authority in

a timely manner, National Members shall be competent to take the measures referred

to in paragraph 2 in accordance with their national law. They shall inform the

competent national authority without undue delay of any measures taken pursuant to

this paragraph.

4. Where, under national law, the powers referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are

conferred upon another competent national authority, the National Member may

request that authority to issue or execute the measure concerned.

5. Without affecting paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States may grant additional powers to

National Members for the purpose of exercising their tasks under this Regulation.

Those Member States shall notify the Commission and the College of those powers.

6. The National Members shall have access to, or shall be able to obtain without undue

delay, in accordance with their national law, the information contained in the

following registers of their Member State:

(a) criminal records;

(b) registers of arrested persons;

(c) investigation registers;

(d) DNA, fingerprint, and vehicle registration registers, where relevant for criminal

investigations;

(e) the ECRIS-TCN in accordance with Article 14(1) and (4) of Regulation

(EU)2019/816 of the European Parliament and of the Council47;

45 Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 on European

Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for

the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings (OJ L 191, 28.7.2023, p. 118). 46 Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on asset recovery

and confiscation (OJ L, 2024/1260, 2.5.2024). 47 Regulation (EU) 2019/816 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 establishing a

centralised system for the identification of Member States holding conviction information on third-country

nationals and stateless persons (ECRIS-TCN) to supplement the European Criminal Records Information

System and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 (OJ L 135, 22.5.2019, p. 1.

EN 35 EN

(f) centralised bank account registers and retrieval systems established pursuant to

Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council48;

(g) other registers of public authorities where such information is necessary for the

performance of their tasks under this Regulation.

SECTION VI

THE COLLEGE

Article 19

Composition of the College

1. The College shall be composed of all National Members.

2. Members of the College may be assisted by advisers or experts.

Article 20

Powers and functions of the College

1. The College shall be responsible for the operational functions of Eurojust and shall

act with full independence.

2. The College shall in particular:

(a) facilitate the identification of connected proceedings, including by requesting

National Members to verify whether parallel investigations or prosecutorial

actions concerning analogous facts or offences are pending within their

respective Member States;

(b) identify cross-cutting issues and best practices in operational matters, where

necessary by requesting National Members to liaise with relevant national

contact points of judicial networks or other competent national authorities;

(c) request the Administrative Director to prepare analyses on the impact of

international, Union and national case-law on operational matters;

(d) provide operational input to the Executive Board for the definition of priorities

in cooperation with third countries and for operational documents for which

Europol requests Eurojust’s contribution;

(e) request the Executive Board to establish ECE in accordance with Article 31

and judicial coordination platforms in accordance with Article 27;

(f) upon request of the Executive Board or the Management Board provide advice

on issues that are directly linked to operational matters;

(g) adopt the implementing rules necessary to carry out its functions.

3. The College shall take the operational decisions, including on:

48 Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules

facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or

prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA (OJ L 186,

11.7.2019, p. 12.

EN 36 EN

(a) the opening, registration and management of own initiative cases in the

Eurojust case management system, on the basis of information provided by one

or more Member States or on the basis of information received from a third

country, an international organisation or any Union body, office or agency, in

particular Europol and the EPPO, or developed by the Eurojust staff;

(b) in the context of own initiative cases opened pursuant to point (a), the

transmission to the competent national authorities of the Member States

concerned of information relevant for the initiation, extension or conduct of

investigations and prosecutions potentially falling within their competence;

(c) in the context of own initiative cases opened pursuant to point (a), the

organisation of a coordination meeting where the College considers that direct

engagement between the competent national authorities of the Member States

concerned is necessary to ensure effective coordination of their investigations

and prosecutions;

(d) the assessment of whether a case involving one Member State has

repercussions at Union level within the meaning of Article 5(6), point (b);

(e) the determination of whether there is an essential interest in providing

assistance in cases involving at least one Member State and a third country or

international organisation, in accordance with Article 5(5), point (c)(iii);

(f) the approval of requests for cooperation submitted by third countries or

international organisations falling within the scope of Article 5(6), point (d);

Article 21

Meetings of the College

1. The President shall convene meetings of the College.

2. The College shall meet at least once per month. It shall also meet at the initiative of

the President or at the request of at least one third of its members.

3. The Administrative Director and authorised Eurojust staff shall be invited to attend

meetings of the College, as appropriate, without the right to vote.

4. The College shall invite representatives of the EPPO and Europol to attend its

meetings, without the right to vote, when matters of common interest are discussed.

It may also invite representatives of Union bodies, liaison prosecutors seconded to

Eurojust, Contact Points posted at Eurojust and other national or international

competent authorities, as appropriate, without the right to vote.

5. The College may invite any other person whose opinion may be of interest to attend

its meetings as an observer.

Article 22

Voting rules of the College

1. The College shall endeavour to adopt its decisions by consensus. Where a consensus

cannot be reached, the College shall adopt its decisions by a majority of its members

without undue delay.

EN 37 EN

2. Each National Member shall have one vote. In the absence of a voting member, the

Deputy shall be entitled to exercise the right to vote subject to the conditions set out

in Article 17(2). In the absence of the deputy, the Assistant shall also be entitled to

exercise the right to vote subject to the conditions set out in Article 17(3).

Article 23

President and Vice-President of Eurojust

1. The College shall elect a President and one Vice-President from among the National

Members by a two-thirds majority of its members. In the event that a two-thirds

majority cannot be reached after the second round of election, the Vice-President

shall be elected by a simple majority of the members of the College, while a two-

thirds majority shall continue to be necessary for the election of the President.

2. The President shall exercise their functions on behalf of the College. The President

shall:

(a) represent Eurojust in external institutional relations;

(b) call and preside over the meetings of the College and the Executive Board and

keep the College informed of any matters that are of interest to it;

(c) direct the work of the College;

(d) participate in the Management Board meetings without the right to vote;

(e) exercise any other functions set out in its rules of procedure.

3. The Vice-President shall exercise the functions set out in paragraph 2 which the

President entrusts to him or her and shall replace the President where the latter is

prevented from attending to their duties. The President and Vice-President shall be

assisted in the performance of their specific duties by the staff of Eurojust.

4. The term of office of the President and the Vice-President shall be four years,

renewable once.

5. Where a National Member is elected President or Vice-President of Eurojust, their

term of office shall be extended to ensure that he or she can fulfil their function as

President or Vice-President.

6. If the President or Vice-President no longer fulfils the conditions required for the

performance of their duties, he or she may be dismissed by the College acting on a

proposal from one third of its members. The decision shall be adopted on the basis of

a two-thirds majority of the members of the College, excluding the President or

Vice-President concerned.

7. When a National Member is elected President of Eurojust, the Member State

concerned may second another suitably qualified person to reinforce the national

desk for the duration of the former’s mandate as President. A Member State which

decides to second such a person shall be entitled to apply for compensation in

accordance with Article 24.

EN 38 EN

Article 24

Compensation mechanism for the election to the position of President

1. The Member State whose National Member is elected President shall be entitled to

compensation for the purpose of Article 23(7), in accordance with the mechanism

determined by the Council by means of implementing acts.

2. The compensation shall be available to any Member State if:

(a) its National Member has been elected President;

(b) it requests compensation from the College and provides justification for the

need to reinforce its national desk on grounds of an increased workload.

3. The compensation provided shall equate to 50 % of the national salary of the

seconded person. Compensation for living costs and other associated expenses shall

be provided on a comparable basis to that provided to Union officials or other

servants seconded abroad.

4. The costs of the compensation mechanism shall be borne by Eurojust's budget.

EN 39 EN

CHAPTER III

OPERATIONAL MATTERS

SECTION I

FACILITATION OF JUDICIAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

Article 25

Support to cross-border investigations and prosecutions

1. Eurojust shall support and strengthen cooperation between competent authorities of

Members States, third countries and competent organs of international organisations,

and ensure the best possible coordination of investigations and prosecutions, in

particular by providing operational, analytical, and strategic support.

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Eurojust may in particular:

(a) organise and facilitate coordination meetings and coordination centres, and

provide the necessary logistical support, including translation and

interpretation;

(b) facilitate and support the issuing, transmission and execution of requests of

judicial cooperation and mutual recognition instruments, in particular by:

i. advising on the appropriate instruments and applicable legal

requirements;

ii. supporting the drafting, transmission and follow-up of requests;

iii. facilitating contacts with competent national authorities of Member

States and with competent authorities of third countries and competent

organs of international organisations and, where relevant, private parties;

iv. identifying alternative solutions in the event of refusals of execution of

requests;

v. providing assistance in cases of competing or conflicting requests for

judicial cooperation, including European Arrest Warrants issued in

accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA49, such as

by issuing reasoned opinions;

(c) assist in the prevention, identification and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction

between competent national authorities, including by:

i. identifying parallel or linked proceedings;

ii. providing legal advice, including as regards the application of the ne bis

in idem principle;

iii. issuing non-binding reasoned opinions or recommendations on the

resolution of such conflicts;

49 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the

surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1), as amended by Council

Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ L 81, 27.3.2009, p. 24).

EN 40 EN

iv. inviting the competent authorities to accept that one of them is the

jurisdiction best placed to prosecute;

v. facilitating the transfer of proceedings.

(d) facilitate and support the exchange of information between competent national

authorities and competent organs of international organisations;

(e) cross-check, in accordance with this Regulation, information contained in

relevant databases in order to identify links between cross-border

investigations and support such investigations;

(f) facilitate and support the cross-border tracing, freezing, confiscation and

recovery of criminal assets in cross-border cases, including in relation to post-

conviction and non-conviction based confiscation in proceedings in criminal

matters;

(g) request Europol to provide support, including through operational analysis in

an ongoing specific criminal investigation on the basis of investigative

data provided by Eurojust or the Member States.

3. The competent national authorities shall, upon request, inform Eurojust of the

outcome of proceedings in respect of which they have received assistance under this

Article, including, where available, relevant judicial decisions and any follow-up

measures taken.

4. Eurojust shall support the implementation of this Article through its authorised staff,

acting under the direction of the National Members in accordance with this

Regulation.

Article 26

Support to joint investigation teams

1. Eurojust shall provide operational, technical, analytical, legal and financial support to

joint investigation teams (JIT), including by:

(a) advising on the opportunity and legal requirements for setting up a joint

investigation team, including the possible participation of Europol;

(b) assisting in the drafting and negotiation of agreements establishing joint

investigation teams;

(c) advising on prosecutorial strategies and on the implementation of operational

actions.

2. The roles and status of National Members and other members of the National Desks

within a joint investigation team shall be determined by the agreement establishing

the JIT.

3. Eurojust staff may, where the agreement establishing a JIT so provides, participate in

the activities of that JIT, under the conditions laid down therein, including as regards

the applicable liability regime.

4. Eurojust staff may, within the limits of the law of the Member States in which a joint

investigation team operates, assist in its activities and in the exchange of information

between its members.

EN 41 EN

5. Information obtained by authorised Eurojust staff in the course of their participation

in a joint investigation team shall, with the consent and under the responsibility of

the Member State which provided the information, be processed by Eurojust under

the conditions laid down in this Regulation.

6. Eurojust shall support the Network of National Experts on Joint Investigation Teams

(JIT Network) through its staff, in particular by:

(a) organising its meetings and training activities;

(b) collecting and analysing evaluations of individual joint investigation teams;

(c) managing Eurojust’s financial support to joint investigation teams;

(d) performing the tasks assigned to the JITs Network Secretariat under Regulation

(EU) 2023/96950of the European Parliament and of the Council.

7. Eurojust financial support shall be provided in accordance with Regulation (EU,

Euratom) 2024/2509 and may include the use of simplified forms of funding,

including lump sums, unit costs and flat-rate financing. Eurojust may directly cover

or reimburse expenditure necessary for the establishment and functioning of joint

investigation teams, including costs relating to travel, accommodation, interpretation,

translation, coordination activities, equipment and operational support.

Article 27

Judicial coordination platforms

1. At the request of two or more Member States, or on its own initiative with the

agreement of the Member States concerned, Eurojust may establish judicial

coordination platforms to support particularly complex cross-border investigations or

prosecutions or to enhance cooperation in addressing specific forms of serious crime.

2. Judicial coordination platforms shall be composed of representatives of the

competent national authorities of the Member States concerned, including members

of the National Desks, and shall be supported by authorised Eurojust staff.

3. Representatives of Union agencies, bodies, offices and other relevant international

justice actors, as well as of third countries and international organisations, may be

invited to participate, subject to the agreement of the competent national authorities

concerned.

4. Eurojust shall provide operational, technical, analytical, legal and financial support to

the judicial coordination platforms. It shall also provide the necessary logistical

support, including premises and secure communication tools.

5. Judicial coordination platforms shall in particular:

(a) facilitate the exchange of information and evidence relevant to judicial

authorities, including in support of the development and implementation of a

common prosecution strategy;

(b) provide Eurojust with information for the purposes of operational analysis in

accordance with this Regulation;

50 Regulation (EU) 2023/969 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a

support centre for the setting up of joint investigation teams and amending Regulations (EU) 2018/1726 and

(EU) 2018/1727 (OJ L 132, 17.5.2023, p. 1).

EN 42 EN

(c) provide specialised assistance to competent national authorities, including,

where appropriate, with the support of the ECEs referred to in Article 31.

6. Information processed in the framework of a judicial coordination platform shall be

handled in accordance with this Regulation and shall be stored and processed in the

case management system referred to in Article 41.

SECTION II

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ON OWN INITIATIVE

Article 28

Own initiative

1. In the absence of a request from the competent national authorities or the EPPO,

Eurojust may carry out operational activities on its own initiative, in accordance with

this Regulation, on the basis of information provided by Member States, third

countries, international organisations, Union institutions, bodies, offices and

agencies, or private parties, or obtained from publicly available sources, in

connection with investigations or prosecutions, ongoing or potential, involving

serious crime falling within the scope of Eurojust's competence in accordance with

this Regulation.

2. When Eurojust acts on its own initiative, National Members may, giving their

reasons, ask the competent authorities of their Member States to:

(a) undertake an investigation or prosecution in respect of specific acts;

(b) agree that one of them may be in a better position to undertake an investigation

or to prosecute specific acts;

(c) extend the scope of investigations to include other Member States or third

countries not initially involved;

(d) prioritise a request for judicial cooperation in cases of conflicting or competing

requests;

(e) authorise, where appropriate, the cross-checking of relevant databases, in order

to identify links between cases;

(f) coordinate between the competent authorities of the Member States concerned;

(g) request operational or analytical support from Europol in accordance with

Article 57;

(h) set up a joint investigation team;

(i) take special investigative measures;

(j) transmit to Eurojust information necessary for the performance of its tasks;

(k) take any other measure justified for the purposes of the investigation or

prosecution.

3. National Members may further:

EN 43 EN

(a) inform the competent national authorities of investigations or prosecutions that

may have repercussions at Union level or affect Member States other than

those directly concerned;

(b) transmit to the competent national authorities information relevant for the

initiation, extension or conduct of investigations and prosecutions falling

within Eurojust’s competence;

(c) issue reasoned opinions in relation to specific cases and transmit those opinions

to the Member States concerned;

(d) issue or execute requests for judicial cooperation in urgent cases in accordance

with this Regulation.

4. Where obstacles arise in relation to requests for, or decisions on, judicial cooperation

between two or more Member States, including those based on instruments giving

effect to the principle of mutual recognition, and where such obstacles cannot be

resolved through consultation between the competent authorities concerned, National

Members may, on their own initiative or at the request of the competent national

authorities concerned, issue a reasoned opinion on the case.

5. The competent national authorities of the Member States concerned shall respond,

without undue delay, to requests made by National Members under paragraph 2 and

to the reasoned opinions referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4. They may refuse to

comply with such requests or not follow such opinions where compliance would

adversely affect essential national security interests, jeopardise the success of an

ongoing investigation or prosecution, or endanger the safety of an individual.

6. On the basis of the information referred to in paragraph 1, and for the purposes of

paragraph 2, authorised Eurojust staff may compile, analyse and transmit relevant

operational information to the National Members or the College for appropriate

follow-up. For that purpose, authorised Eurojust staff may temporarily store and

analyse personal data in the case management system solely for the purpose of

enabling the National Member or the College to determine whether such data are

relevant to Eurojust’s tasks and whether a case should be opened in the case

management system. Those data may be held for a period not exceeding six months

in a secure and controlled environment provided by Eurojust for this purpose, subject

to appropriate safeguards substantially equivalent to those identified for the case

management system. Where, exceptionally, the National Member or the College has

not been able to make that determination within that period, the period may be

extended once for a further period not exceeding six months.

7. Eurojust staff may also prepare reasoned opinions for the purposes of paragraphs 3

and 4 and transmit them to the National Members or the College for appropriate

follow-up.

8. The competent national authorities of the Member States concerned shall retain

responsibility for deciding on any action to be taken as a result of Eurojust's activities

carried out under this Article, in accordance with applicable national and Union law.

EN 44 EN

Article 29

Preservation, analyses and storage of evidence

1. In order to support the action of the Member States in combating core international

crimes and related criminal offences, Eurojust shall, in accordance with this

Regulation, develop and maintain the capacity to collect, preserve, analyse and store

evidence and information that may be used as evidence related to those crimes.

2. At the request of the College or of the Commission, Eurojust may, in duly justified

cases, extend the capacities referred to in paragraph 1 to other forms of serious crime

within its competence in accordance with this Regulation, provided that this is

essential to support specific investigations and prosecutions in respect of which a

joint investigation team or a judicial coordination platform has been established.

3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Eurojust may, in accordance with this Regulation,

receive evidence from the competent national authorities of the Member States and

third countries as well as competent organs of international criminal courts and

tribunals. Eurojust may also collect relevant information that may be used as

evidence from Union agencies, bodies and offices, international organisations,

private parties and from publicly available sources.

4. Eurojust shall facilitate the secure and timely exchange of information and evidence

referred to in paragraph 1 between the competent national authorities of the Member

States and third countries as well as competent organs of international criminal

courts and tribunals or, where appropriate and in accordance with this Regulation,

make such information and evidence directly available to them.

5. For the purposes of this Article, Eurojust shall, through authorised staff:

(a) support the competent national and international authorities in the transmission

of evidence to Eurojust and collect information from publicly available

sources;

(b) support the competent national and international authorities in their

investigations and prosecutions, including by identifying evidentiary gaps and

parallel investigations, and advising on prosecution strategies; and

(c) cooperate closely with Europol, within their respective mandates, to identify

links between information processed by both agencies, including through the

preparation of joint analytical reports where appropriate.

Article 30

Retention of knowledge

1. Authorised Eurojust staff shall retain, analyse and, where appropriate, exchange

operational knowledge related to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including

knowledge derived from Eurojust's casework, the European Judicial Network, and

the experience of contact points of other relevant networks and bodies active in

judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

2. Eurojust shall identify cross-cutting issues and best practices in judicial cooperation

in criminal matters, and shall develop tools, including guidelines, policy documents

and casework analyses, to assist practitioners in their cross-border investigations and

prosecutions.

EN 45 EN

3. Eurojust may compile and analyse, including through the use of automated tools,

national and Union case-law relevant to judicial cooperation in criminal matters,

including on the admissibility of evidence.

Article 31

Eurojust Centres of Expertise in criminal matters (ECE)

1. Eurojust may establish ECE as specialised internal structures to provide strategic,

analytical and operational support to the National Desks, the competent national

authorities and other relevant stakeholders in combating priority forms of crime at

Union level and addressing cross-cutting issues in judicial cooperation in criminal

matters.

2. ECE shall be coordinated by Eurojust staff, who shall decide, after consulting the

members of the National Desks associated with the relevant ECE, on the

prioritisation of activities and outcomes. Such members may also request the support

of the ECE in analytical and operational activities. Judicial networks and other

bodies of national practitioners may also contribute to the work of the centres.

3. Representatives of other Union agencies, bodies, offices, as well as other relevant

stakeholders, may be invited to participate in the work of an ECE where appropriate

for the fulfilment of their respective tasks.

4. The College, the Administrative Director or the Commission may request the

establishment of an ECE. The Executive Board shall assess the operational added

value and the financial implications of such a request and submit the assessment to

the Management Board, which shall decide in accordance with Article 10(1), point

(r).

SECTION III

ADDITIONAL FORMS OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Article 32

Contact point for third countries and international organisations for the purposes of

Regulation (EU) 2019/816

1. In performing its role as a contact point for third countries and international

organisations for the purpose of identifying the Member States holding criminal

records information on a third-country national pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation

(EU) 2019/816, Eurojust shall ensure the efficient and secure handling of requests,

and their follow-up as referred to therein, in compliance with applicable data

protection rules. To that end, it shall establish appropriate organisational and

technical measures for the processing, prioritisation and follow-up of such requests.

2. Upon the establishment of the measures referred to in paragraph 1, the procedure laid

down in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2019/816 shall be carried out by electronic

means.

EN 46 EN

Article 33

Assistance in relation to victims of crime in cross-border criminal proceedings

Eurojust shall assist investigating and prosecuting authorities in upholding victims' rights in

cross-border criminal investigations. In particular, at the request of competent national

investigating and prosecuting authorities of the Member States, Eurojust may:

(a) assist in facilitating the identification of victims in cases involving a large

number of victims;

(b) advise competent national authorities on the rights of victims to participate in

criminal proceedings under national or Union law in cross-border cases;

(c) assist competent national authorities with victims' access to compensation and

the restitution of property, including property subject to freezing or

confiscation measures;

(d) provide any additional assistance in relation to victims' rights in cross-border

criminal proceedings, within the limits of its competence in accordance with

this Regulation.

Article 34

Involvement in the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats

(EMPACT)

1. Eurojust shall support Europol in the preparation of analytical products on internal

security, including strategic analysis, threat assessment, trend report and situational

briefings, in particular with a view to assisting the Council and the Commission in

establishing the Union's strategic, policy and operational priorities for combating

serious crime.

2. Eurojust shall assist Europol in the operational implementation of the Union's

priorities in the fight against serious crime, in particular by supporting the

participation of judicial authorities in the EMPACT.

3. In coordination with Europol, Eurojust may provide operational, analytical, legal,

administrative and logistical support to activities led by Member States within the

framework of EMPACT. Such support may include facilitating the exchange of

information between the competent authorities concerned.

4. Such support shall be limited to activities led by, or involving, judicial authorities.

The practical arrangements for the coordination between Europol and Eurojust in this

context shall be laid down in the working arrangement concluded between the two

agencies as referred to in Article 57.

EN 47 EN

SECTION IV

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION WITH COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IN

THE MEMBER STATES

Article 35

Eurojust national coordination system

1. Each Member State shall establish a Eurojust national coordination system to support

the work of the National Member of its Member State and ensure coordination

between the National Desk and the competent national authorities of that Member

State.

2. The Eurojust national coordination system shall include the contact points of

networks with which Eurojust maintains relations pursuant to Article 56, the national

correspondents for terrorism matters and any other relevant judicial authority.

3. Each Member State may appoint a national correspondent for Eurojust to act as

coordinator of the members of the Eurojust national coordination system at national

level.

4. Each Member State shall designate a competent national authority as Eurojust

national correspondent for terrorism matters. That national correspondent for

terrorism matters shall be a judicial or other competent authority. Where the national

legal system so requires, a Member State may designate more than one competent

national authority as Eurojust national correspondent for terrorism matters. The

national correspondent for terrorism matters shall have access to all relevant

information in accordance with Article 37. That national correspondent shall be

competent to collect such information and to transmit it to Eurojust, in compliance

with national and Union law, in particular national criminal procedural law and

applicable data protection rules.

5. Members of the Eurojust national coordination system shall in particular:

(e) ensure that information related to the Member State concerned in accordance

with Article 37 is transmitted to the case management system referred to in

Article 41 in an efficient and reliable manner;

(a) assist the National Member in identifying the competent authorities for the

execution of requests for, and decisions on, judicial cooperation, including

those based on instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition;

(b) inform the National Member of meetings at which operational matters of

relevance to Eurojust are discussed, and invite the National Member to attend

such meetings;

(c) maintain close relationship with the Europol national unit;

(d) raise awareness among investigating and prosecuting authorities in their

Member State of the support Eurojust can provide in cross-border cases;

(e) transmit to Eurojust national case-law relevant to judicial cooperation in

criminal matters, including on the admissibility of evidence;

(f) bring to Eurojust's attention cross-cutting issues and best practices in judicial

cooperation in criminal matters, with a view to contributing to Eurojust’s

EN 48 EN

retention of knowledge in accordance with Article 30 and participate in the

work of ECE in accordance with Article 31.

6. The National Member shall meet regularly with the members of the Eurojust national

coordination system of their Member State. The National Member shall in particular

hold dedicated regular meetings with the contact points of each network referred to

in paragraph 2, in order to address matters falling within the remit of that network

and to ensure effective coordination between the National Desk and the relevant

competent national authorities.

7. In order to meet the objectives referred to in paragraph 5, the persons referred to in

paragraph 2, in so far as they act as competent national authorities, shall be

connected to the decentralised IT system referred to in Article 40.

8. Authorised Eurojust staff may assist in the implementation of this Article.

Article 36

Exchanges of information with the Member States and between National Members

1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall exchange with Eurojust all

information necessary for the performance of its tasks under Articles 4 and 25 in

accordance with the applicable data protection rules. That shall at least include the

information referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article.

2. The transmission of information to Eurojust shall only be interpreted as a request for

the assistance of Eurojust in the case concerned where specified as such by a

competent authority of the Member State.

3. The National Members shall exchange all information necessary for the performance

of Eurojust’s tasks among themselves and with their competent national authorities,

without prior authorisation. In particular, the competent national authorities shall

promptly inform their National Members of a case which concerns them.

4. The competent national authorities shall inform their National Members of the

setting up of joint investigation teams and of the results of the work of such teams.

5. The competent national authorities shall inform their National Members without

undue delay of any case affecting at least three Member States for which requests for

or decisions on judicial cooperation, including requests and decisions based on

instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition, have been

transmitted to at least two Member States, where one or more of the following apply:

(a) the offence involved is punishable in the requesting or issuing Member State

by a custodial sentence or a detention order, the maximum period of which is at

least five or six years, to be decided by the Member State concerned, and is

included in the following list:

i. trafficking in human beings;

ii. sexual abuse or sexual exploitation including child pornography and

solicitation of children for sexual purposes;

iii. drug trafficking;

iv. illicit trafficking in firearms, their parts or components or ammunition or

explosives;

EN 49 EN

v. corruption;

vi. crime against the financial interests of the Union;

vii. forgery of money or means of payment;

viii. money laundering activities;

ix. computer crime;

(b) there are factual indications that a criminal organisation is involved;

(c) there are indications that the case may have a serious cross-border dimension

or may have repercussions at Union level, or that it may affect Member States

other than those directly involved.

6. The competent national authorities shall inform their National Members of:

(a) cases in which conflicts of jurisdiction have arisen or are likely to arise;

(b) controlled deliveries affecting at least three countries, at least two of which are

Member States;

(c) repeated difficulties or refusals regarding the execution of requests for, or

decisions on, judicial cooperation, including requests and decisions based on

instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition.

7. The competent national authorities shall not be obliged to supply information in a

particular case if doing so would harm essential national security interests or

jeopardise the safety of individuals.

8. This Article shall not affect conditions set out in bilateral or multilateral agreements

or arrangements between Member States and third countries, including any

conditions set by third countries concerning the use of information once supplied.

9. This Article shall not affect other obligations regarding the transmission of

information to Eurojust.

10. The competent national authorities shall not be obliged to provide information as

referred to in this Article where such information has already been transmitted to

Eurojust in accordance with other provisions of this Regulation.

Article 37

Exchanges of information on terrorism cases

1. As regards terrorist offences, the competent national authorities shall inform the

National Member of their Member State of any ongoing or concluded criminal

investigations supervised by judicial authorities as soon as the case is referred to the

judicial authorities in accordance with national law, in particular national criminal

procedural law, of any ongoing or concluded prosecutions and court proceedings,

and of any court decisions on terrorist offences. That obligation shall apply to all

criminal investigations related to terrorist offences regardless of whether there is a

known link to another Member State or a third country unless the criminal

investigation, due to its specific circumstances, clearly affects only one Member

State.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where:

EN 50 EN

(a) the sharing of information would jeopardise an ongoing investigation or the

safety of an individual; or

(b) the sharing of information would be contrary to essential security interests of

the Member State concerned.

3. Terrorist offences for the purpose of this Article are offences referred to in Directive

(EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council51.

4. The information transmitted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include the

operational personal data and non-personal data set out in Annex III. Such

information may include personal data in accordance with Annex III, paragraph 4,

but only if such personal data are held by or can be communicated to the competent

national authorities in accordance with national law and if the transmission of those

data is necessary to identify reliably a data subject under Article 44(5).

5. Where the situation referred to in paragraph 2 is at stake, the competent national

authorities shall inform their National Members about any changes to the information

transmitted under paragraph 1 without undue delay and, where possible, no later than

10 working days after such changes.

6. The competent national authority shall not be obliged to provide such information

where it has already been transmitted to Eurojust.

7. The competent national authority may at any stage request the support of Eurojust in

the follow-up action as regards links identified on the basis of information provided

under this Article.

Article 38

Information provided by Eurojust to competent national authorities

1. Eurojust shall provide competent national authorities with information on the results

of the processing of information, including the existence of links with cases already

stored in the case management system, without undue delay. That information may

include personal data.

2. Where a competent national authority requests that Eurojust provide it with

information within a certain timeframe, Eurojust shall transmit that information

within that timeframe.

Article 39

Exchanges of operational information between authorised Eurojust staff and the

Member States

1. Except where otherwise provided in this Regulation, exchanges of operational

information between Eurojust and the competent authorities of the Member States

shall take place through the National Members, in accordance with the rules on

management of information in the case management system set out in Article 42.

51 Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating

terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision

2005/671/JHA (OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6).

EN 51 EN

2. Where exchanges of operational information between Eurojust and the competent

authorities of the Member States take place through the National Members in

accordance with paragraph 1, a National Member may, on a case-by-case basis,

authorise one or more members of the authorised Eurojust staff, under their

supervision and responsibility, to exchange operational information directly with the

competent authorities of their Member State where that is necessary for the

performance of Eurojust's tasks under this Regulation.

3. Where authorised Eurojust staff act pursuant to paragraph 2, such exchanges shall be

carried out through the decentralised IT system referred to in Article 40, unless

paragraph 2 of Article 40 applies. The National Member concerned shall remain

responsible for the content of the information exchanged and for its further

processing in the case management system in accordance with Article 42(1).

Article 40

Secure digital communication and data exchange between competent national

authorities and Eurojust

1. Communication between the competent national authorities and Eurojust under this

Regulation shall be carried out through a network of IT systems and interoperable e-

CODEX access points, which operate under the individual responsibility and

management of each Member State and Eurojust, enabling the secure and reliable

cross-border exchange of information ('the decentralised IT system'). The case

management system referred to in Article 41 shall be connected with the

decentralised IT system.

2. Where exchange of information in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due

to, for instance, the unavailability of the decentralised IT system, the nature of the

transmitted material, technical limitations, such as data size, legal constraints relating

to the admissibility as evidence of the requested data or to forensic requirements

applicable to the requested data, or exceptional circumstances, the transmission shall

be carried out by the most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the

need to ensure an exchange of information which is swift, secure and reliable, and

allows the recipient to establish authenticity.

3. The competent national authorities shall transmit the information referred to in

Articles 36 and 37 of this Regulation to Eurojust in a semi-automated and structured

manner from national registers in accordance with the Commission Implementing

Regulation (EU) 2025/244752.

4. The Commission shall be responsible for the creation, maintenance and development

of reference implementation software which Member States and Eurojust may

choose to apply as their back-end system. That reference implementation software

shall be based on a modular setup, meaning that the software is packaged and

delivered separately from the e-CODEX components needed to connect it to the

decentralised IT system. That setup shall enable Member States to reuse or enhance

their existing national judicial communication infrastructures for the purpose of

52 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2447 of 4 December 2025 laying down the rules for the

application of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the

technical specifications, measures and other requirements for the establishment and use of the decentralised

IT system for secure processing and communication of information (OJ L, 2025/2447, 5.12.2025).

EN 52 EN

cross-border use and Eurojust to connect its case management system to the

decentralised IT system.

5. The Commission shall provide, maintain and support the reference implementation

software free of charge. The creation, maintenance and development of the reference

implementation software shall be financed from the general budget of the Union.

6. Member States and Eurojust shall bear their respective costs for establishing and

operating an authorised e-CODEX access points as defined in Article 3, point 3, of

Regulation (EU) 2022/850, and for establishing and adjusting their relevant IT

systems to make them interoperable with the access point.

7. Where Eurojust establishes or procures cloud computing services for the purposes of

this Regulation, it shall ensure that such services comply with applicable Union law,

including requirements on the EU cloud sovereignty framework, data security, data

protection, cybersecurity and digital sovereignty, thereby ensuring the secure hosting

and processing of data exchanged under this Regulation, with strict access control

and data compartmentalisation.

Article 41

Case management system

1. Eurojust shall establish a case management system for the processing of operational

personal data listed in Annex II, data listed in Annex III and non-personal data.

2. The case management system shall serve the following purposes:

(a) support the management and coordination of investigations and prosecutions in

respect of which Eurojust is providing assistance;

(b) support Eurojust in the exercise of its own initiative functions pursuant to

Article 28;

(c) ensure secure access to, and the secure exchange of, information on ongoing

investigations and prosecutions;

(d) facilitate the secure exchange of information and evidence with competent

national authorities of the Member States, Union bodies, offices and agencies,

competent authorities of third countries, competent organs of international

organisations and private parties, including through the communication

channels referred to in paragraph 3 and subject to the handling restrictions set

out in Article 42(3);

(e) enable the analysis and systematic cross-checking of information and evidence

in order to identify links between cross-border investigations and prosecutions,

to support case -building by competent national authorities;

(f) preserve, analyse and store evidence in accordance with Article 29;

(g) enable the extraction of data for operational, analytical and statistical purposes;

(h) facilitate monitoring to ensure that the processing of operational personal data

within the system is lawful and complies with this Regulation and the

applicable data protection rules.

3. The case management system shall be connected to the decentralised IT system a

referred to in Article 40. It may also be linked to the secure telecommunications

EN 53 EN

connection referred to in Article 9 of Council Decision 2008/976/JHA and to other

secure communication channels established in accordance with applicable Union

law.

4. Where Eurojust has been granted access to data in or from other Union information

systems established under other Union legal acts, it may use the case management

system to access data in or to connect to such information systems for the purpose of

retrieving and processing information, including personal data, provided that it is

necessary for the performance of its tasks and is in accordance with the Union legal

acts establishing such information systems.

5. Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall not extend the access rights granted to Eurojust to other

Union information systems under the Union legal acts establishing those systems.

6. For the processing of operational personal data, Eurojust shall not carry out any

automated processing outside the integrated data processing environment of the case

management system, except in the cases explicitly provided for under this

Regulation. National Members may temporarily store and analyse personal data for

the purpose of determining whether such data are relevant to Eurojust’s tasks and

whether a case should be opened in the case management system. Those data may be

held for a period not exceeding six months in a secure and controlled environment

provided by Eurojust for this purpose, subject to appropriate safeguards substantially

equivalent to those identified for the case management system. Where, exceptionally,

the National Member has not been able to make that determination within that

period, the period may be extended once for a further period not exceeding six

months.

7. Where Eurojust is authorised to process operational or non-operational personal data

but does not act as controller in respect of such data, it shall ensure the secure

processing thereof. By way of derogation from paragraph 6, Eurojust may, where

necessary, establish a separate system for the processing of such data. Such data shall

not be used for any other task or purpose of Eurojust, including cross-checking.

8. In the performance of their tasks, National Members may process personal data on

the individual cases on which they are working, in accordance with this Regulation

or other applicable instruments. They shall allow the Data Protection Officer to have

access to the personal data processed in the case management system.

Article 42

Management of the information in the case management system

1. The National Member, or any other member of the National Desk acting under their

authority, shall store the information gathered by or transmitted to that National

Member in accordance with this Regulation or other applicable instruments in the

case management system. The National Member shall be responsible for the

management of the data processed by that National Member.

2. The National Member shall decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to keep access

to the information restricted or to grant access to it, or to parts of it, to one or more of

the following:

(a) other National Members;

(b) liaison prosecutors posted at Eurojust pursuant to Article 63;

EN 54 EN

(c) the EPPO liaison officer seconded to Eurojust pursuant to Article 58;

(d) the contact points posted at Eurojust pursuant to Article 63;

(e) authorised Eurojust staff pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article; or

(f) any other person working on behalf of Eurojust who has received the necessary

authorisation from the Administrative Director pursuant to Article 71(5).

3. Where a link as referred to in Article 41(2), point (e), has been identified, the

National Member shall indicate, in consultation with the competent national

authorities that provided the relevant information, in general or specific terms, any

restrictions on the further handling, access and transfer of that information. Such

restrictions shall be binding on all persons granted access to the information pursuant

to paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be recorded in the case management system

4. Authorised Eurojust staff may store information in the case management system

under the supervision of a National Member or the College, in accordance with this

Regulation.

5. Authorised Eurojust staff shall be granted access to the case management system to

the extent strictly necessary for the performance of the specific tasks assigned to

them under this Regulation, and in particular for the following purposes:

(a) the retention and management of operational knowledge pursuant to Article 31;

(b) the performance of tasks related to own initiative cases pursuant to Article 28;

(c) the processing of requests under the automated hit/no-hit system pursuant to

Article 55, subject to the handling restrictions indicated pursuant to paragraph

3 of this Article.

6. The College shall lay down the details of the practical implementation of paragraph

5.

EN 55 EN

CHAPTER IV

PROCESSING OF INFORMATION

Article 43

Processing of personal data by Eurojust

1. References to 'applicable data protection rules' in this Regulation shall be understood

as references to the provisions on data protection set out in this Regulation and in

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

2. Eurojust shall determine the time limits for the storage of administrative personal

data in the data protection provisions of its rules of procedure.

Article 44

Processing of operational personal data

1. Where necessary to perform its tasks, Eurojust may, within the framework of its

competence and in order to carry out its operational functions, process by automated

means or in structured manual files in accordance with this Regulation only the

operational personal data listed in point 1 of Annex II of persons who, under the

national law of the Member States concerned, are persons with regard to whom there

are serious grounds for believing that they have committed or are about to commit a

criminal offence in respect of which Eurojust is competent or who have been

convicted of such an offence.

2. Eurojust may process only the operational personal data listed in point 2 of Annex II

of persons who, under the national law of the Member States concerned, are regarded

as victims or other parties to a criminal offence, such as persons who might be called

to testify in a criminal investigation or prosecution regarding one or more of the

types of crime and the criminal offences referred to in Article 6, persons who are

able to provide information on criminal offences, or contacts or associates of a

person referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. The processing of such operational

personal data may only take place if it is necessary for the fulfilment of the tasks of

Eurojust, within the framework of its competence and in order to carry out its

operational functions.

3. In exceptional cases, for a limited period of time which shall not exceed the time

needed for the conclusion of the case in relation to which the data are processed,

Eurojust may also process operational personal data other than the personal data

referred to in Annex II relating to the circumstances of an offence, where such data

are immediately relevant to and are included in ongoing investigations which

Eurojust is coordinating or helping to coordinate and when their processing is

necessary for the purposes specified in paragraph 1. The Data Protection Officer

referred to in Article 50 shall be informed immediately when such operational

personal data are processed, and shall be informed of the specific circumstances

which justify the necessity of the processing of those operational personal data.

Where such other data refer to witnesses or victims within the meaning of paragraph

2, the decision to process them shall be taken jointly by the National Members

concerned.

EN 56 EN

4. Where special categories of operational personal data refer to witnesses or victims

within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this Article, the decision to process them shall

be taken by the National Members concerned.

5. Where operational personal data are transmitted in accordance with Article 37

Eurojust may process the operational personal data listed in Annex III of the

following persons:

(a) persons for whom, in accordance with the national law of the Member State

concerned, there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed or

are about to commit a criminal offence in respect of which Eurojust is

competent;

(b) persons who have been convicted of such offence.

6. Unless the competent national authority decides otherwise on a case-by-case basis,

Eurojust may continue to process the operational personal data referred to in point (a)

of paragraph 5 also after the proceedings have been concluded under the national law

of the Member State concerned, even in the event of an acquittal or of a final

decision not to prosecute. Where the proceedings did not result in a conviction,

processing of operational personal data shall take place only in order to identify links

between ongoing, future or concluded investigations and prosecutions as referred to

in Article 41(2), point (c).

Article 45

Time limits for the storage of operational personal data

1. Operational personal data processed by Eurojust shall be stored by Eurojust for only

as long as is necessary for the performance of its tasks. In particular, without

affecting paragraph 4 of this Article, the operational personal data referred to in

Article 44 may not be stored beyond the first applicable date among the following

dates:

(a) the date on which prosecution is barred under the statute of limitations of all

the Member States concerned by the investigation and prosecutions;

(b) the date on which Eurojust is informed that the person has been acquitted and

the judicial decision became final, in which case the Member State concerned

shall inform Eurojust without delay;

(c) three years after the date on which the judicial decision of the last of the

Member States concerned by the investigation or prosecution became final;

(d) the date on which Eurojust and the Member States concerned mutually

established or agreed that it was no longer necessary for Eurojust to coordinate

the investigation and prosecutions, unless there is an obligation to provide

Eurojust with this information in accordance with Article 36(5) or (6);

(e) three years after the date on which operational personal data were transmitted

in accordance with Article 36(5) or (6), unless those data relate to a case in

respect of which criminal proceedings are still pending, including any appeal

proceedings, at the time of expiry of that period, in which case the data may be

retained until a final judgment has been rendered.

EN 57 EN

2. Eurojust shall not store operational personal data transmitted in accordance with

Article 38 beyond the first of the following dates:

(a) the date on which prosecution is barred under the statute of limitations of all

the Member States concerned by the investigation or prosecution;

(b) five years after the date on which the judicial decision of the last of the

Member States concerned by the investigation or prosecution became final, or

two years in the case of an acquittal or final decision not to prosecute;

(c) the date on which Eurojust is informed of the decision of the competent

national authority pursuant to Article 46(5).

3. Observance of the storage deadlines referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be

reviewed constantly by appropriate automated processing conducted by Eurojust, in

particular from the moment Eurojust ceases to provide support. A review of the need

to store the data shall also be carried out every three years after they were entered. If

operational personal data referred to in Article 44(4) are stored for a period

exceeding five years, the EDPS shall be informed thereof.

4. Before one of the storage deadlines referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 expires,

Eurojust shall review the need for the continued storage of the operational personal

data where and as long as that is necessary to perform its tasks. It may decide by way

of derogation to store those data until the following review. The reasons for the

continued storage shall be justified and recorded. If no decision is taken on the

continued storage of operational personal data at the time of the review, those data

shall be deleted automatically.

5. Where, in accordance with paragraph 3, operational personal data have been stored

beyond the storage deadlines referred to in paragraph 1, the EDPS shall also carry

out a review of the need to store those data every three years.

6. Once the deadline for the storage of the last item of automated data from the file has

expired, all documents in the file shall be destroyed with the exception of any

original documents which Eurojust has received from competent national authorities

and which need to be returned to their provider.

7. Where Eurojust has coordinated an investigation or prosecutions, the National

Members concerned shall inform each other whenever they receive information that

the case has been dismissed or that all judicial decisions related to the case have

become final.

8. Paragraph 6 shall not apply where:

(a) that would damage the interests of a data subject who requires protection; in

such cases, the operational personal data shall be used only with the express

and written consent of the data subject;

(b) the accuracy of the operational personal data is contested by the data subject; in

such cases paragraph 5 shall not apply for a period enabling Member States or

Eurojust, as appropriate, to verify the accuracy of such data;

(c) the operational personal data are to be maintained for purposes of proof or for

the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims;

(d) the data subject opposes the erasure of the operational personal data and

requests the restriction of their use instead; or

EN 58 EN

(e) the operational personal data are further needed for archiving purposes in the

public interest or statistical purposes. Eurojust and Member States shall define

mechanisms to ensure that the security measures referred to in Article 91 of

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 are addressed across information system

boundaries.

Article 46

Security of operational personal data

Eurojust and Member States shall define mechanisms to ensure that the security measures

referred to in Article 91 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 are addressed across information

system boundaries.

Article 47

Right of access by the data subject

1. Any data subject who wishes to exercise the right of access referred to in Article 80

of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 to operational personal data that relate to the data

subject and which have been processed by Eurojust may make a request to Eurojust

or to the national supervisory authority in the Member State of the data subject’s

choice. That authority shall refer the request to Eurojust without delay, and in any

case within one month of its receipt.

2. The request shall be answered by Eurojust without undue delay and in any case

within three months of its receipt by Eurojust.

3. The competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall be consulted by

Eurojust on the decision to be taken in response to a request. The decision on access

to data shall only be taken by Eurojust in close cooperation with the Member States

directly concerned by the communication of such data. Where a Member State

objects to Eurojust’s proposed decision, it shall notify Eurojust of the reasons for its

objection. Eurojust shall comply with any such objection. The National Members

concerned shall thereafter notify the competent authorities of the content of

Eurojust’s decision.

4. The National Members concerned shall deal with the request and reach a decision on

Eurojust’s behalf. Where the National Members concerned are not in agreement, they

shall refer the matter to the College, which shall take its decision on the request by a

two-thirds majority.

Article 48

Limitations to the right of access

In the cases referred to in Article 81 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, Eurojust shall inform the

data subject after consulting the competent authorities of the Member States concerned in

accordance with Article 47(3) of this Regulation.

EN 59 EN

Article 49

Right to restriction of processing

Without affecting the exceptions set out in Article 45(8) of this Regulation, where the

processing of operational personal data has been restricted under Article 82(3) of Regulation

(EU) 2018/1725, such operational personal data shall only be processed for the protection of

the rights of the data subject or another natural or legal person who is a party to the

proceedings to which Eurojust is a party, or for the purposes laid down in Article 82(3) of

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Article 50

Data Protection Officer

1. The Management Board shall designate a Data Protection Officer. The Data

Protection Officer shall be a member of Eurojust staff specifically appointed for this

purpose.

2. The Data Protection Officer shall be appointed for a term of four years and shall be

eligible for reappointment.

3. The Executive Board shall adopt implementing rules concerning the Data Protection

Officer. Those implementing rules shall in particular concern the procedure for the

selection of the Data Protection Officer, and their dismissal, tasks, duties and powers

as well as, safeguards for the independence of the Data Protection Officer.

4. In the exercise of their functions, if the Data Protection Officer considers that the

provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 related to the processing of administrative

personal data or related to the processing of operational personal data have not been

complied with, he or she shall inform the Executive Board, requesting that it resolve

the non-compliance within a specified time. If the Executive Board does not resolve

the non-compliance within the specified time, the Data Protection Officer shall refer

the matter to the EDPS.

Article 51

Notification of a personal data breach to the authorities concerned

1. In the event of a personal data breach, Eurojust shall, without undue delay and

without affecting Articles 34 or 92 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, notify the

competent authorities of the Member States concerned of that breach.

2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall, as a minimum, describe the

following:

(a) the nature of the personal data breach including, where possible and

appropriate, the categories and number of data subjects concerned and the

categories and number of data records concerned;

(b) the likely consequences of the personal data breach;

(c) the measures proposed or taken by Eurojust to address the personal data

breach.

EN 60 EN

3. Where appropriate, the notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall recommend

measures to mitigate the possible adverse effects of the personal data breach.

Article 52

Cooperation between the EDPS and national supervisory authorities

1. The EDPS shall act in close cooperation with national supervisory authorities with

respect to specific issues requiring national involvement, in particular if the EDPS or

a national supervisory authority finds major discrepancies between practices of the

Member States or potentially unlawful transfers using Eurojust’s communication

channels, or in the context of questions raised by one or more national supervisory

authorities on the implementation and interpretation of this Regulation.

2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, coordinated supervision shall be ensured in

accordance with Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

3. The EDPS shall keep national supervisory authorities fully informed of all issues that

directly affect them or are otherwise relevant to them. Upon a request from one or

more national supervisory authorities, the EDPS shall inform them on specific issues.

4. In cases relating to data originating from one or several Member States, the EDPS

shall consult the national supervisory authorities concerned. The EDPS shall not

decide on further action to be taken before those national supervisory authorities

have informed the EDPS of their position, within a deadline specified by the EDPS.

That deadline shall not be shorter than one month or longer than three months. The

EDPS shall take utmost account of the position of the national supervisory

authorities concerned. In cases where the EDPS intends not to follow their position,

he or she shall inform them, provide a justification, and submit the matter to the

European Data Protection Board. In cases which the EDPS considers to be extremely

urgent, he or she may decide to take immediate action. In such cases, the EDPS shall

immediately inform the national supervisory authorities concerned and substantiate

the urgent nature of the situation and justify the action he or she has taken.

5. National supervisory authorities shall keep the EDPS informed of any actions they

take with respect to the transfer, retrieval, or any other communication of operational

personal data under this Regulation by the Member States.

Article 53

Responsibility in data protection matters

1. Eurojust shall process operational personal data in such a way that it can be

established which authority provided the data or from where the data were retrieved.

2. Responsibility for the accuracy of operational personal data shall lie with:

(a) Eurojust for operational personal data provided by a Member State, or by a

Union institution, body, office or agency where the data provided has been

altered in the course of processing by Eurojust;

EN 61 EN

(b) the Member State or the Union institution, office, body or agency which

provided the data to Eurojust, where the data provided has not been altered in

the course of processing by Eurojust;

(c) Eurojust for operational personal data provided by third countries or by

international organisations, for operational personal data retrieved by Eurojust

from publicly available sources, and for operational personal data received

from private parties.

3. Responsibility for compliance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 in relation to

administrative personal data and for compliance with this Regulation and with

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 in relation to operational personal data shall lie with

Eurojust. Responsibility for the legality of a transmission of operational personal

data shall lie:

(a) where a Member State has provided the operational personal data concerned to

Eurojust, with that Member State;

(b) with Eurojust, where it has provided the operational personal data concerned to

Member States, to Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, to third

countries or to international organisations.

4. Subject to other provisions of this Regulation, Eurojust shall be responsible for all

data processed by it.

EN 62 EN

CHAPTER V

RELATIONS WITH PARTNERS

SECTION I

COMMON PROVISIONS

Article 54

Common provisions

1. Where necessary for the achievement of the objectives set out in this Regulation,

Eurojust may establish and maintain cooperative relations with Union institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies in accordance with their respective objectives, and with

the competent authorities of third countries and international organisations in

accordance with the cooperation strategy referred to in Article 65.

2. Where relevant to the performance of its tasks and subject to any restrictions

pursuant to Article 36(8) and Article 80, Eurojust may exchange any information

with the entities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article directly, with the exception

of operational personal data.

3. For the purposes set out in paragraphs 1 and 2, Eurojust may, subject to prior

consultation with the Commission, conclude working arrangements with the entities

referred to in paragraph 1. Such working arrangements shall not form the basis for

allowing the exchange of personal data and shall not create legal obligations

incumbent on the Union or its Member States.

4. Eurojust may receive and process personal data received from the entities referred to

in paragraph 1 in so far as necessary for the performance of its tasks, subject to the

applicable data protection rules.

5. Where the data to be transmitted have been provided by a Member State, Eurojust

shall obtain the consent of the relevant competent authority in that Member State,

unless the Member State has granted its prior authorisation to such onward

transmission, either in general terms or subject to specific restrictions. Such consent

may be withdrawn at any time.

6. Where Member States, Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, third countries

or international organisations have received personal data from Eurojust, onward

transmission of such data to third parties shall be prohibited unless all of the

following conditions have been met:

(a) Eurojust has obtained prior consent from the competent national authorities

that provided the data;

(b) Eurojust has given its explicit consent after considering the circumstances of

the case at hand;

(c) the onward transmission is only for a specific purpose that is not incompatible

with the purpose for which the data were transmitted.

EN 63 EN

Article 55

Common provisions on indirect information exchange on the basis of a hit/no-hit system

1. Eurojust shall take all appropriate measures to ensure indirect access by other Union

bodies, offices and agencies, where such access is provided for in Union law, to

information held by Eurojust, under conditions of reciprocity, by means of an

automated hit/no-hit system operated through the searching of indexes which shall be

kept up to date.

2. Indirect access to information under the first paragraph shall not affect any

restrictions indicated by the Member States, Union institutions, bodies, offices and

agencies, third countries or international organisations providing the information.

3. In the case of a hit, Eurojust shall initiate the procedure by which the information

that generated the hit is to be transmitted to the searching Union body, office or

agency, as referred to in paragraph 1, in accordance with the restrictions set by the

provider of the information pursuant to this Regulation. In case of a hit with

information that is subject to restrictions, the automated hit/no-hit system referred to

in paragraph 1 shall not notify the searching Union body, office or agency of that hit.

In that case, Eurojust shall expeditiously contact the provider of the information to

enquire if the information that generated the hit can be shared with the searching

Union body, office or agency. Where the provider of the information lifts those

restrictions, Eurojust shall transmit the information that generated the hit to the

searching Union body, office or agency. Where the provider of the information

maintains those restrictions, Eurojust shall comply with those restrictions and not

transmit the information that generated the hit to the searching Union body, office or

agency.

4. Searches of information in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be carried out

only for the purpose of identifying whether information available at another Union

body, office or agency matches information processed at Eurojust.

5. While preserving the automated nature of the hit/no-hit system, Eurojust shall allow

searches in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 only by persons designated by other

Union bodies, offices or agencies as authorised to perform such searches.

6. Under the conditions of reciprocity referred to in the first paragraph, Eurojust shall,

within the limits of its competence, have indirect access, on the basis of an

automated hit/no-hit system, to information provided to Union bodies, offices and

agencies, subject to the conditions set out in Union law.

Such access shall not affect any restrictions indicated by the Member State, Union

institution, body, office or agency, third country or international organisation that

providing that information.

7. Eurojust and other Union bodies, offices and agencies shall inform each other if, as a

result of a hit in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3, there are indications that data

may be incorrect or may conflict with other data.

8. Where necessary for the implementation of the hit/no-hit system referred to in

paragraphs 1 to 7, the technical procedure, including the data sets that should be

included in the indexes as well as performance and availability requirements, shall be

laid down by means of implementing acts adopted in accordance with Article 84(2).

EN 64 EN

SECTION II

RELATIONS WITH UNION BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Article 56

Relations with the European Judicial Network and other Union networks involved in

judicial cooperation in criminal matters

1. Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in criminal matters shall maintain

privileged relations with each other in criminal matters, based on consultation and

complementarity, in particular through the members of each National Desk

designated as contact points for the European Judicial Network in accordance with

Article 17. The complementarity between Eurojust and the European Judicial

Network shall be exercised in accordance with their respective mandates. Eurojust

shall exercise its competence in cases involving serious cross-border crime where the

effective conduct of investigations or prosecutions requires the coordination of

competent national authorities, involve third countries or international organisations

or require the development of a common prosecutorial strategy across two or more

jurisdictions. To that end, the following arrangements shall apply:

(a) the Secretariat of the European Judicial Network shall form part of the staff of

Eurojust; it may draw on the administrative resources of Eurojust which are

necessary for the performance of the European Judicial Network’s tasks,

including for covering the costs of the plenary meetings of the European

Judicial Network;

(b) contact points of the European Judicial Network may be invited on a case-by-

case basis to attend relevant Eurojust meetings;

(c) Eurojust and the European Judicial Network may make use of the Eurojust

national coordination system established pursuant to Article 35 when

determining whether a request should be handled with the assistance of

Eurojust or the European Judicial Network.

2. Eurojust shall support the following networks and bodies active in judicial

cooperation in criminal matters:

(a) the European Judicial Network, established by Decision 2008/976/JHA;

(b) the European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for

genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, established by Decision

2002/494/JHA;

(c) the network of contact points against corruption, established by Decision

2008/852/JHA;

(d) the JITs Network,

(e) the European Judicial Cybercrime Network;

(f) the European Judicial Organised Crime Network;

(g) other specialised networks or bodies of judicial practitioners active in areas

falling within Eurojust's mandate.

3. The networks and bodies referred to in paragraph 2 may draw on the administrative

resources of Eurojust where necessary for the performance of their tasks.

EN 65 EN

4. The connection between the networks and bodies referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2

and the competent national authorities shall be ensured at national level through the

Eurojust national coordination system established pursuant to Article 35.

5. Networks and bodies referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall contribute to Eurojust's

retention of knowledge and may participate in the work of ECE in accordance with

Articles 30 and 31 respectively.

Article 57

Relations with Europol

1. Eurojust shall establish and maintain close cooperation with Europol, with a view to

ensuring the coherent and coordinated exercise of their respective mandates and

avoiding duplication of effort.

2. Eurojust shall conclude a working arrangement with Europol53, including any

amendment thereof, in consultation with the Commission, setting out the practical

modalities of their cooperation. That arrangement shall be subject to regular review,

where necessary and, in any event, upon request of the Commission.

3. Where, in the context of Eurojust's activities, including at any stage of a joint

investigation team, Eurojust or a Member State identifies the need for coordination,

cooperation or support falling within Europol's mandate, Eurojust shall notify

Europol thereof and shall initiate the procedure for sharing the relevant information

in accordance with the decision of the Member State that provided it. In such cases,

Eurojust shall consult with Europol.

4. Where Eurojust receives a notification pursuant to Article 74, paragraph 1 of

Regulation (EU) [Europol Regulation] indicating that judicial follow-up may

be required, it shall, without undue delay, examine the information received and take

all appropriate measures within its mandate, including by informing the competent

authorities of the Member States concerned and, where appropriate, acting on its own

initiative in accordance with Article 28. Eurojust shall consult Europol,

as appropriate, and shall keep Europol informed of the use made of

that information, in accordance with the decision of the Member State that provided

the information.

5. Eurojust and Europol may, where necessary for the achievement of their objectives

and with the consent of the competent national authorities of the Member States

concerned, establish coordination mechanisms, including joint operational

platforms to support strategic and operational coordination in cross-border criminal

investigations requiring coordination between two or more Member States For the

purposes of such coordination mechanisms, Member States may determine

information to be made directly accessible to the Member States, Eurojust and

Europol for joint operational analysis in specific investigations or crime area, without

prejudice to any restrictions indicated by the Member States and subject to the rules

and safeguards for personal data processing set out in this Regulation.

53 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European

Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions

2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p.

53).

EN 66 EN

6. In the context of cross-border criminal investigations supported by Eurojust, Eurojust

may, with the agreement of the competent national authorities, request Europol to

provide support, in particular by:

(a) providing relevant information, analyses, expertise and operational support;

(b) carrying out operational analysis on the basis of investigative data supplied by

Eurojust, the Member States or other competent authorities;

(c) cross-checking information against its databases and exchanging information

as provided for in Article 55

7. This Article shall not affect any restriction of access or use, whether in general or

specific terms, indicated by a Member State, a Union body, office or agency, a third

country or an international organisation in relation to information that it has

provided, which Europol shall respect.

8. Eurojust shall cooperate with Europol, within their respective mandates, in

supporting the competent authorities of the Member States in the context of

digital investigations and access to data, and in particular act as a knowledge hub for

advising, assisting and providing capacity building on the cross-border access to e-

evidence.

Article 58

Relations with the EPPO

1. Eurojust shall establish and maintain a close relationship with the EPPO based on

mutual cooperation within their respective mandates and competences. The President

of Eurojust and the European Chief Prosecutor shall meet on a regular basis to

discuss issues of common interest. They shall meet at the request of the President of

Eurojust or of the European Chief Prosecutor.

2. Eurojust and the EPPO shall cooperate closely and shall, to the extent necessary for

the performance of their tasks and within their respective mandates, exchange

information in a timely and efficient manner, in accordance with Article 55.

3. Eurojust shall assist the EPPO, in particular in cases where investigative measures or

other forms of cooperation are required in Member States which do not participate

in enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO or third countries or

requiring coordination between investigations conducted by the EPPO and those

conducted by competent authorities of the Member States which do not participate in

the EPPO. To that end, upon request of the EPPO, or the competent national

authorities of the Member States, Eurojust shall support the EPPO in the

performance of its tasks, including by:

(a) facilitating the setting up and operation of joint investigation teams;

(b) organising coordination meetings and centres;

(c) facilitating judicial cooperation with Member States which do not participate in

enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO or third countries.

4. Eurojust shall treat requests for support from the EPPO without undue delay and,

where appropriate, as if they had been submitted by a national authority competent

for judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

EN 67 EN

5. The support provided pursuant to paragraph 3 shall not affect the independence of

the EPPO in the conduct of investigations and prosecutions.

6. In operational matters falling within the competence of the EPPO, Eurojust shall

inform the EPPO of, and, where appropriate, associate it with, its activities relating to

cross-border cases, including by

(a) sharing relevant information on its cases, including personal data, in

accordance with this Regulation; or

(b) requesting the EPPO to provide support.

7. In accordance with Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, Eurojust shall,

without undue delay, report to the EPPO any criminal conduct in respect of which

the EPPO could exercise its competence in accordance with Regulation (EU)

2017/1939.

8. When Eurojust receives information from the EPPO on forms of crime falling

outside the scope of the EPPO’s competence and within Eurojust’s mandate,

Eurojust shall examine the information received and take any appropriate action

within its mandate.

9. For the purposes of cooperation under this Article, the EPPO shall second a liaison

officer to Eurojust. The liaison officer shall be granted access to the case

management system for the purpose of the secure exchange of data relevant to the

performance of their functions, including, where appropriate, the opening,

registration and management of cases falling within the scope of cooperation

between Eurojust and the EPPO under this Article. Eurojust shall remain liable for

the processing of personal data by the liaison officer in the case management system.

10. Representatives of the EPPO, including its liaison officer, shall be invited to

participate in meetings of the College of Eurojust where matters of common interest

are discussed.

11. The practical arrangements for the implementation of this Article shall be laid down

in a working arrangement between Eurojust and the EPPO, which shall be subject to

regular review.

Article 59

Relations with other Union bodies, offices and agencies

1. Eurojust shall establish and maintain cooperative relations with the Union bodies,

offices and agencies referred to in this Article, to the extent necessary for the

achievement of its objectives and the performance of its tasks under this Regulation,

within their respective mandates and in full compliance with the applicable data

protection rules.

2. Eurojust shall establish and maintain cooperative relations with OLAF with a view to

facilitating OLAF's contribution shall contribute to Eurojust's coordination work

regarding the protection of the financial interests of the Union, in accordance with its

mandate under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013. To that end:

(a) for the purposes of receiving and transmitting information between Eurojust

and OLAF, and without affecting Article 8 of this Regulation, Member States

shall ensure that the National Members of Eurojust are regarded as competent

EN 68 EN

authorities of the Member States solely for the purposes of Regulation (EU,

Euratom) No 883/2013;

(b) the exchange of information between OLAF and the National Members shall

be without prejudice to not affect any obligations to provide such information

to other competent authorities under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013

or any other applicable Union or national law;

3. Eurojust shall establish and maintain cooperative relations with the European Border

and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), governed by Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the

European Parliament and of the Council54,with a view to facilitating Frontex

contribution to Eurojust's work, including by transmitting relevant information

processed in accordance with its mandate, in particular as regards criminal activities

falling within Eurojust's competence under Article 6 of this Regulation. The practical

modalities of cooperation between Eurojust and Frontex shall be set out in a working

arrangement concluded in accordance with Article 58(3) of this Regulation.

4. Eurojust shall establish and maintain cooperative relations with AMLA, and shall

conclude a working arrangement with AMLA setting out the details of their

cooperation in accordance with Article 54(3) of this Regulation. To that end:

(a) Member States shall ensure that the National Members of Eurojust are

regarded as relevant national authorities for the purposes of Article 27(8) of

Regulation (EU) 2024/1620, in order to facilitate the exchange of information

between AMLA and Eurojust in cases falling within Eurojust's competence;

(b) the exchange of information between AMLA and the National Members shall

not affect any obligations to provide such information to other competent

authorities under Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 or any other applicable Union or

national law;

5. Eurojust shall establish and maintain cooperative relations with the EU Customs

Authority, once established, and shall conclude a working arrangement setting out

the modalities of their cooperation in accordance with Article 54(3) of this

Regulation, with a view to facilitating judicial cooperation in criminal matters

involving customs offences and other crimes affecting the Union's financial and

economic interests.

SECTION III

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Article 60

Relations with the authorities of third countries and international organisations

1. Eurojust may establish and maintain cooperation with authorities of third countries

and international organisations, including by concluding working arrangements as

referred to Article 54 (3).

54 Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the

European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ L

295, 14.11.2019, p. 1).

EN 69 EN

2. Eurojust shall, after prior consultation with the Commission, adopt a cooperation

strategy every four years on strengthening judicial cooperation with third countries

and international organisations, including with a view to concluding working

arrangements referred to in paragraph (1) and to posting contact points at Eurojust as

referred to in Article 63. Such strategy shall be implemented in cooperation with the

Commission.

Article 61

Liaison officers posted to third countries

1. For the purpose of facilitating judicial cooperation of Member States with third

countries, Eurojust may post liaison officers to a third country subject to the

existence of a working arrangement as referred to in Article 54(3) with the competent

authorities of that third country.

2. The liaison officer shall be a member of Eurojust staff and shall have adequate

expertise in judicial cooperation.

3. The tasks of the liaison officers shall include any activity designed to encourage and

accelerate judicial cooperation in criminal matters, in particular by establishing direct

contacts with the competent authorities of the third country. National Members may

authorise the liaison officers, under their supervision and responsibility, to exchange

operational personal data involving their Member State directly with the competent

authorities of the third country.

4. The competent authorities of the Member States and liaison officers referred to in

paragraph 1 may contact each other directly. In such cases, the liaison officer shall

inform the National Member concerned of such contacts.

5. The liaison officers shall report to the College on a regular basis. The liaison officer

shall inform National Members and competent national authorities of all cases

concerning their Member State.

6. The liaison officers shall have access to the case management system and their

operational exchanges with third countries shall be recorded therein.

Article 62

Liaison prosecutors posted at Eurojust

1. A liaison prosecutor from a third country or from an international organisation may

be seconded to Eurojust where:

(a) a cooperation agreement concluded before 12 December 2019 between

Eurojust and that third country;

(b) an international agreement concluded between the Union and that third country

or international organisation pursuant to Article 218 TFEU; or

(c) an adequacy decision adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article

36 of Directive (EU) 2016/680.

EN 70 EN

2. The rights and obligations of the liaison prosecutor shall be set out in the cooperation

agreement or in the international agreement referred to in paragraph 1 and may be

supplemented by a working arrangement as referred to in Article 54(3).

3. Liaison prosecutors seconded to Eurojust shall be granted access to the case

management system for the secure exchange of data relevant for the performance of

their functions, including, where appropriate, the opening, registration and

management of cases. Eurojust shall remain liable for the processing of personal

data by liaison prosecutors in the case management system.

4. Transfers of operational personal data to liaison prosecutors through the case

management system shall take place only in compliance with this Regulation and

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

5. As regards the management of the data by liaison prosecutors and access to

information, Article 42 paragraphs 1 and 2, shall apply mutatis mutandis.

6. The College shall lay down the detailed conditions governing the access of liaison

prosecutors to the case management system.

Article 63

Contact points posted at Eurojust

1. Eurojust may, on the basis of a working arrangement concluded in accordance with

Article 54(3), cooperate with contact points designated by the competent authorities

of a third country and hosted at Eurojust for that purpose.

2. Contact points posted at Eurojust may:

(a) expedite, coordinate or facilitate the execution of requests for judicial

cooperation in criminal matters;

(b) support communication and coordination between Eurojust, the Member States

and the competent authorities of the third country;

(c) provide information on the national law and procedures of the third country

relevant to judicial cooperation;

(d) facilitate the participation of the competent authorities of the third country in

coordination meetings, coordination centres and judicial coordination platforms

organised by Eurojust, as well as in joint investigation teams supported by

Eurojust; and

(e) submit requests to Eurojust for assistance in relation to the matters referred to

in points (a) to (d).

3. Contact points posted at Eurojust shall be designated by the competent authority of

the third country from among officials of prosecution services, central authorities or

equivalent services of ministries of justice with competence in judicial cooperation in

criminal matters.

4. The practical modalities of cooperation with contact points posted at Eurojust shall

be laid down in the working arrangement referred to in paragraph 1.

5. Contact points posted at Eurojust shall be granted access to the case management

system for the purpose of the secure exchange of data. Such access shall be limited to

EN 71 EN

data relevant to the performance of their functions as set out in paragraph 2,

including, where appropriate, the opening, registration and management of cases.

Any exchange of operational personal data shall take place exclusively in accordance

with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and in compliance with Article 54(3).

6. Eurojust shall remain liable for the processing of personal data by contact points

posted at Eurojust in the case management system.

7. Article 42, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to contact points hosted

at Eurojust.

8. The College shall lay down the detailed conditions governing the access of contact

points hosted at Eurojust to the case management system and to other Eurojust

services.

Article 64

Contact points in third countries and international organisations

1. Eurojust may cooperate with contact points designated by the competent authorities

of a third country or of an international organisation and based in that third country

or international organisation.

2. Through its contact points in third countries and international organisations, Eurojust

shall seek to support and facilitate cooperation with the competent authorities of the

third country or international organisation concerned, in particular in cases involving

serious crime with a cross-border dimension. When acting pursuant to this paragraph,

those contact points may perform the functions referred to in Article 63(2) as laid

down in the in the working arrangement concluded in accordance with Article 54(3).

3. For the purposes of this Article, Eurojust shall seek to ensure that its contact points in

third countries and international organisations are designated from among officials of

prosecution services, central authorities or equivalent services of ministries of justice

with competence in judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

4. Contact points in third countries and international organisations shall not have access

to the case management system or to operational personal data held by Eurojust.

5. Without affecting paragraph 4, any exchange of operational personal data with the

third country or international organisation concerned shall be carried out by Eurojust

in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. Such operational personal data may

only be entered into the case management system by authorised Eurojust staff.

EN 72 EN

CHAPTER VI

ESTABLISHMENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET

Article 65

Establishment of the budget

1. Each year, the Administrative Director shall draw up a draft statement of estimates of

Eurojust’s revenue and expenditure for the following financial year, including the

establishment plan, and shall submit it to the Executive Board. The European

Judicial Network and, where appropriate, other Union networks involved in judicial

cooperation in criminal matters referred to in Article 56 shall be informed of the

parts related to their activities in due time before the estimate is forwarded to the

Commission.

2. The Executive Board shall, on the basis of that draft, examine the provisional draft

estimate of Eurojust’s revenue and expenditure for the following financial year and

shall forward it to the Management Board.

3. The draft estimate of Eurojust’s revenue and expenditure, as approved by the

Management Board, shall be sent to the Commission by 31 January of each year.

4. The Commission shall transmit the statement of estimates to the budgetary authority

together with the draft general budget of the Union.

5. On the basis of the statement of estimates, the Commission shall enter in the draft

general budget of the Union the estimates it considers necessary for the

establishment plan, which it shall submit to the budgetary authority in accordance

with Articles 313 and 314 TFEU.

6. The budgetary authority shall authorise the appropriations for the contribution to

Eurojust.

7. The budgetary authority shall adopt Eurojust’s establishment plan.

8. Eurojust's budget shall be adopted by the Management Board. It shall become

definitive following the final adoption of the general budget of the Union. Where

necessary, it shall be adjusted by the Management Board accordingly.

Article 66

Structure of the budget

1. Estimates of all revenue and expenditure of Eurojust shall be prepared for each

financial year and shall be shown in Eurojust’s budget. The financial year shall

correspond to the calendar year.

2. Eurojust’s budget shall be balanced in terms of revenue and expenditure.

3. Without affecting other resources, Eurojust’s revenue shall comprise the following:

(a) a contribution from the Union entered in the general budget of the Union;

(b) any voluntary financial contributions from the Member States;

(c) any contributions from third countries participating in the work of the Eurojust;

EN 73 EN

(d) Union funding in the form of contribution agreements or ad hoc grants, in

accordance with Eurojust’s financial rules referred to in Article 69 and the

provisions of the relevant Union instruments supporting its policies, taking into

account the exceptional nature of such agreements;

(e) charges for publications and for any services provided by Eurojust.

4. The expenditure of Eurojust shall include staff remuneration, administrative and

infrastructure expenditure and operational expenditure.

Article 67

Implementation of the budget

1. The Administrative Director shall act as the authorising officer and shall implement

Eurojust’s budget in compliance with the principles of economy, efficiency and

effectiveness, and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management.

2. Each year the Administrative Director shall submit to the budgetary authority all

information relevant to the results of evaluation procedures.

Article 68

Presentation of accounts and discharge

1. Eurojust's accounting officer shall send the provisional accounts for the financial

year (year N) to the Commission's Accounting Officer and to the Court of Auditors

by 1 March of the following financial year (year N + 1).

2. Eurojust shall send the report on the budgetary and financial management for year N

to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors

by 31 March of year N + 1.

3. The Commission's Accounting Officer shall send Eurojust's provisional accounts for

year N, consolidated with the Commission's accounts, to the Court of Auditors by 31

March of year N + 1.

4. In accordance with Article 246(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509, the Court

of Auditors shall make its observations on Eurojust's provisional accounts by 1 June

of year N + 1.

5. On receipt of the Court of Auditors' observations on Eurojust's provisional accounts

pursuant to Article 246 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509, the Administrative

Director shall draw up Eurojust's final accounts under their own responsibility and

shall submit them to the Executive Board for an opinion.

6. The Executive Board shall deliver an opinion on Eurojust's final accounts for year N

and forward those accounts together with its opinion to the Management Board for

adoption.

7. The Management Board shall deliver its opinion on Eurojust's final accounts for year

N.

8. The Administrative Director shall, by 1 July of year N + 1, send the final accounts

for year N to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of

Auditors, together with the Executive Board's opinion and the Management Board's

opinion.

EN 74 EN

9. A link to the pages of the website containing the final accounts of Eurojust shall be

published in the Official Journal of the European Union by 15 November of year N +

1.

10. The Administrative Director shall send the Court of Auditors a reply to its

observations by 30 September of year N + 1. The Administrative Director shall also

send this reply to the Executive Board, the Management Board and the Commission.

11. At the European Parliament's request, the Administrative Director shall submit to it

any information required for the smooth application of the discharge procedure for

the financial year in question, in accordance with Article 261(3) of Regulation (EU,

Euratom) 2024/2509.

12. On a recommendation from the Council acting by a qualified majority, the European

Parliament shall, before 15 May of year N + 2, grant a discharge to the

Administrative Director in respect of the implementation of the budget for year N.

13. The discharge of Eurojust's budget shall be granted by the European Parliament on a

recommendation of the Council following a procedure comparable to that provided

for in Article 319 TFEU and Articles 260, 261 and 262 of Regulation (EU, Euratom)

2024/2509, and based on the audit report of the Court of Auditors.

14. If the European Parliament refuses to grant the discharge by 15 May of year N + 2,

the Administrative Director shall be invited to explain their position to the

Management Board, which shall take its final decision on the matter. The

Management Board may, where appropriate, take any necessary measures, including

measures relating to the Administrative Director's mandate, in accordance with this

Regulation.

Article 69

Financial Rules

1. The financial rules applicable to Eurojust shall be adopted by the Management Board

after consulting the Commission. They shall not depart from Delegated Regulation

(EU) 2019/71555 unless such a departure is specifically required for Eurojust’s

operation and the Commission has given its prior consent.

2. Eurojust shall establish and implement its budget in accordance with its financial

rules and the Regulation (EU, Euratom)2024/2509.

3. In respect of the financial support to be provided to joint investigation teams’

activities, Eurojust and Europol shall jointly establish the rules and conditions upon

which applications for such support are to be processed.

4. Eurojust may award grants related to the fulfilment of its tasks under Article 4(1).

Grants provided for tasks relating to Article 4(1), point (d), may be awarded to the

Member States without a call for proposals.

55 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 of 18 December 2018 on the framework financial

regulation for the bodies set up under the TFEU and Euratom Treaty and referred to in Article 70 of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 122, 10.5.2019,

p. 1).

EN 75 EN

Article 70

Preventing and combating fraud and irregularities

1. In order to combat fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity the provisions of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, shall apply without restriction.

2. The Court of Auditors shall have the power of audit, on the basis of documents and

on the spot, over all grant beneficiaries, contractors and subcontractors who have

received Union funds from Eurojust.

3. OLAF may carry out investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections

with a view to establishing whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other

illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union or serious matters

relating to the discharge of professional duties constituting a dereliction of the

obligations of officials and other servants of the Union liable to result in disciplinary

or, as the case may be, criminal proceedings, in accordance with the provisions and

procedures laid down in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 and Regulation

(Euratom, EC) No 2185/96.

4. Without affecting paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, working arrangements with authorities of

third countries and international organisations, contracts, grant agreements and grant

decisions of Eurojust shall contain provisions expressly empowering the Court of

Auditors and OLAF to conduct such audits and investigations, according to their

respective competences.

5. The staff of Eurojust, the Administrative Director and the members of the College

and Executive Board shall, without delay and without their responsibility being

called into question as a result, notify OLAF and the EPPO of any suspicion of

irregular or illegal activity within their respective mandate which has come to their

attention in the fulfilment of their duties.

EN 76 EN

CHAPTER VII

STAFF

Article 71

General provisions

1. Eurojust shall employ staff necessary for the performance of its tasks and the

functioning of its services.

2. The staff shall be placed under the authority of the Administrative Director and shall

act in accordance with their instructions, without affecting the powers conferred on

other bodies of Eurojust under this Regulation.

3. The Administrative Director shall be responsible for the management of the staff in

accordance with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the

Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, which,

together with the rules adopted by agreement between the institutions of the Union

for giving effect thereto, shall apply to the staff of Eurojust. Where the Management

Board so decides pursuant to Article 10(2), the Administrative Director shall also

exercise the powers of the appointing authority in respect of the staff of Eurojust,

including recruitment, supervision, evaluation and the exercise of disciplinary

authority.

4. The staff shall support Eurojust in carrying out its operational and administrative

functions, in particular:

(a) supporting National Desks and competent national authorities with cross-

border investigations and prosecutions;

(b) case management and operational analysis;

(c) human resources management;

(d) budgetary and financial administration;

(e) information technology and data management;

(f) strategic, legal and policy support;

(g) security and facility management;

(h) communication and knowledge management;

(i) external relations and institutional matters.

5. For the purposes of this Regulation, “authorised Eurojust staff” means members of

staff designated by the Administrative Director to perform specific operational,

administrative or technical tasks, including tasks involving access to operational

personal data and to the case management system.

6. When exercising operational functions, authorised Eurojust staff shall act under the

authority of the Administrative Director and, where appropriate, under the

supervision of the National Members or the College in accordance with this

Regulation and the applicable internal rules.

7. The staff shall provide expertise on fundamental rights matters and, where deemed

necessary or where requested, shall advise on any activity of Eurojust from a

EN 77 EN

fundamental rights perspective, without impeding or delaying those activities. In that

context, they may issue non-binding opinions on relevant documents or measures.

They shall contribute to ensuring respect for fundamental rights within Eurojust in

the performance of its tasks and activities.

Article 72

Seconded national experts and other staff

Eurojust may make use of seconded national experts and other staff not employed by

Eurojust. The provisions of Article 71 shall not apply to the persons referred to in this Article.

EN 78 EN

CHAPTER VIII

EVALUATION AND REPORTING

Article 73

Involvement of the Union institutions and national parliaments

1. Eurojust shall transmit its consolidated annual report to the European Parliament, to

the Council and to national parliaments, which may present observations and

conclusions. The annual report shall be transmitted by 1 May of each year. The

Commission shall adopt implementing acts establishing reporting indicators to

ensure a uniform approach to the collection and presentation of information by

Eurojust in respect of crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union.

2. Upon their election, the newly elected President of Eurojust shall address the

competent committee or committees of the European Parliament and answer

questions put by its members. Discussions shall not refer directly or indirectly to

concrete actions taken in relation to specific operational cases.

3. The President of Eurojust shall appear once a year for the joint evaluation of the

activities of Eurojust by the European Parliament and national parliaments within the

framework of an interparliamentary committee meeting, to discuss Eurojust's current

activities and to present its consolidated annual report or other key documents of

Eurojust. Discussions shall not refer directly or indirectly to concrete actions taken in

relation to specific operational cases.

4. In addition to the other obligations of information and consultation set out in this

Regulation, Eurojust shall transmit to the European Parliament and to national

parliaments in their respective official languages for their information:

(a) the results of studies and strategic projects elaborated or commissioned by

Eurojust;

(b) the programming document referred to in Article 12;

(c) working arrangements concluded with third parties.

Article 74

Evaluation

1. Not later than five years after the entry into force of this Regulation, and every five

years thereafter, the Commission shall commission an evaluation of Eurojust's

performance in relation to its objectives, tasks, governance and location in

accordance with Commission's guidelines. The Management Board shall be heard in

the evaluation.

2. The evaluation shall, in particular, address the possible need to modify the mandate

of Eurojust, and the financial implications of any such modification.

3. On the occasion of every second evaluation, there shall be an assessment of the

results achieved by Eurojust having regard to its objectives, mandate, governance

and tasks, including an assessment of whether the continuation of Eurojust is still

justified with regard to those objectives, mandate, governance and tasks.

EN 79 EN

4. The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, the Council and the

Management Board on the evaluation findings. The findings of the evaluation shall

be made public.

EN 80 EN

CHAPTER IX

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 75

Privileges and immunities

Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the Treaty

on European Union and to the on the Functioning of the European Union shall apply to

Eurojust and its staff56.

Article 76

Language arrangements

1. The provisions laid down in Council Regulation No 157 shall apply to Eurojust.

2. The Management Board shall decide Eurojust's internal language arrangements by a

two-thirds majority of its members.

3. Translation and all other linguistic services required by Eurojust, other than

interpretation, shall be provided by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the

European Union, as established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2965/9458.

Article 77

Confidentiality

1. The National Members and their Deputies and Assistants, Eurojust staff, national

correspondents, seconded national experts, liaison officers, the Data Protection

Officer, and the members and staff of the EDPS shall be bound by an obligation of

confidentiality with respect to any information which has come to their knowledge in

the course of the performance of their tasks.

2. The obligation of confidentiality shall apply to all persons and to all bodies that work

with Eurojust.

3. The obligation of confidentiality shall also apply after leaving office or employment

and after the termination of the activities of the persons referred to in paragraphs 1

and 2.

4. The obligation of confidentiality shall apply to all information received or exchanged

by Eurojust, unless that information has already lawfully been made public or is

accessible to the public.

56 Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 266). 57 Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic

Community (OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385). 58 Council Regulation (EC) No 2965/94 of 28 November 1994 setting up a Translation Centre for bodies of the

European Union (OJ L 314, 7.12.1994, p. 1).

EN 81 EN

Article 78

Conditions of confidentiality of national proceedings

1. Without affecting Article 36(3), where information is received or exchanged via

Eurojust, the authority of the Member State which provided the information may

stipulate conditions, pursuant to its national law, on the use by the receiving authority

of that information in national proceedings.

2. The authority of the Member State which receives the information referred to in

paragraph 1 shall be bound by those conditions.

Article 79

Transparency and communication

1. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council59

shall apply to documents held by Eurojust. The Management Board shall, within six

months of the date of its first meeting, adopt the detailed rules for applying

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

2. Decisions taken by Eurojust under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may

be the subject of a complaint to the European Ombudsman or of an action before the

Court, under the conditions laid down in Articles 228 and 263 TFEU respectively.

3. Eurojust shall publish on its website a list of the Executive Board members and

summaries of the outcome of the meetings of the Executive Board. The publication

of those summaries shall be temporarily or permanently omitted or restricted if such

publication would risk jeopardising the performance of Eurojust’s tasks, taking into

account its obligations of discretion and confidentiality and the operational character

of Eurojust.

4. The Management Board shall, within six months of the date of its first meeting,

establish measures for the application of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 by Eurojust,

including those concerning the appointment of a Data Protection Office. Those

measures shall be established after consultation of the EDPS.

5. Eurojust may engage in communication activities on its own initiative within its field

of competence. The allocation of resources to communication activities shall not be

detrimental to the effective exercise of the tasks of Eurojust. Communication

activities shall be carried out in accordance with relevant communication and

dissemination plans adopted by the Management Board.

Article 80

Security rules on the protection of classified and sensitive non-classified information

1. Eurojust shall adopt security rules that shall be based on the principles and rules laid

down in the Commission's security rules for protecting European Union classified

information (EUCI) and sensitive non-classified information including, inter alia,

provisions for the exchange of such information with third countries, and processing

59 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding

public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

EN 82 EN

and storage of such information as set out in Commission Decisions (EU, Euratom)

2015/44360 and (EU, Euratom) 2015/44461. Any administrative arrangement on the

exchange of EUCI with the relevant authorities of a third country or, in the absence

of such an arrangement, any exceptional ad hoc release of EUCI to those authorities,

shall be subject to the Commission's prior approval.

2. The management board shall adopt Eurojust's security rules following approval by

the Commission. When assessing the proposed security rules, the Commission shall

ensure that they are compatible with Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 and (EU,

Euratom) 2015/444.

Article 81

Administrative inquiries

The administrative activities of Eurojust shall be subject to the inquiries of the European

Ombudsman in accordance with Article 228 TFEU.

Article 82

Liability

1. Eurojust's contractual liability shall be governed by the law applicable to the contract

in question. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to

give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded

by Eurojust.

2. In the case of non-contractual liability, Eurojust shall, in accordance with the general

principles common to the laws of the Member States and independently of any

liability under Article 44, make good any damage caused by its departments or by its

staff in the performance of their duties.

3. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in disputes over

compensation for damages referred to in paragraph 2. The national courts of the

Member States competent to deal with disputes involving Eurojust's liability as

referred to in this Article shall be determined by reference to Regulation (EU) No

1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

4. Paragraph 2 shall also apply to damage caused through the fault of a National

Member, a Deputy or an Assistant in the performance of their duties. However,

where a National Member, a Deputy or an Assistant causes damage while acting on

the basis of the powers granted to him or her pursuant to Article 18 of this

Regulation, their Member State shall reimburse Eurojust the sums which Eurojust

has paid to make good such damage.

5. Each Member State shall be liable, in accordance with its national law, for any

damage caused to an individual resulting from the unauthorised or incorrect

processing by that Member State of data communicated to Eurojust.

60 Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 of 13 March 2015 on Security in the Commission (OJ L 72,

17.3.2015, p. 41). 61 Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU

classified information (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 53).

EN 83 EN

6. The personal liability of staff towards Eurojust shall be governed by the provisions

laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of

Other Servants of the European Union applicable to them.

7. The financial liability of the Union and the Member States for the debts of Eurojust

shall be limited to their contributions already made for the administrative costs.

Article 83

Headquarters Agreement and operating conditions

The necessary arrangements concerning the accommodation to be provided for Eurojust in the

Netherlands and the facilities to be made available by the Netherlands together with the

specific rules applicable in the Netherlands to the members of the Management Board, the

members of the Executive Board, the National Members, Deputies and Assistants, the

Administrative Director, Eurojust staff, liaison prosecutors seconded to Eurojust, contact

points hosted at Eurojust, and members of their families, as well as to any other persons

whose presence at or association with Eurojust is necessary for the performance of its tasks,

shall be laid down in a Headquarters Agreement between Eurojust and the Netherlands.

Article 84

Committee Procedure

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a

committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European

Parliament and of the Council62.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No

182/2011 shall apply.

3. Where the committee delivers no opinion, the Commission shall not adopt the draft

implementing act and Article 5(4), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No

182/2011 shall apply.

Article 85

Repeal

1. Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 is repealed with effect from the date of application of

this Regulation.

2. References to Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 shall be construed as references to this

Regulation.

62 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying

down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the

Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

EN 84 EN

Article 86

Transitional provisions

1. Eurojust as established by this Regulation shall be the legal successor of Eurojust as

established by Regulation (EU) 2018/1727.

2. The National Members seconded by the Member States under Regulation (EU)

2018/1727 shall take the role of National Members under this Regulation and shall

continue to exercise their functions until the end of their respective terms of office as

determined under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. Their terms of office may be

extended once under this Regulation, provided that the overall duration of their

mandate, including any period served under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, does not

exceed ten years. Where the status or powers of National Members are not in

compliance with this Regulation, the Member States concerned shall take the

necessary measures to ensure such compliance without undue delay after [the date of

entry into force of this Regulation].

3. The President and Vice-President of Eurojust elected under Regulation (EU)

2018/1727 shall take the role of President and Vice-President under this Regulation

and shall continue to exercise their functions until the end of their respective terms of

office as determined under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. They may be re-elected once

under this Regulation, provided that the overall duration of their mandate, including

any period served under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, does not exceed eight years.

4. The Administrative Director last appointed under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 shall

take the role of Administrative Director under this Regulation and shall continue to

exercise their functions until the end of their term of office as determined under

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. The term of office of that Administrative Director may

be extended once under this Regulation, provided that the overall duration of their

term of office, including any period served under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, does

not exceed ten years.

5. The College and the Executive Board established under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727

shall continue to exercise their functions under this Regulation until the Management

Board established under this Regulation holds its first meeting. The Management

Board shall hold its first meeting without undue delay after [the date of entry into

force of this Regulation]. The Administrative Director shall take the necessary

measures to ensure the establishment of the Management Board in accordance with

this Regulation. Until the Management Board is operational, the College shall

exercise, on a transitional basis, those management and strategic functions assigned

to the Management Board under this Regulation that are strictly necessary to ensure

the continuity of Eurojust's operations, in particular the adoption of the budget and

the single programming document.

6. Staff employed under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 shall continue in service under this

Regulation. All rights and obligations of staff, including those arising from

employment contracts concluded under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, shall be

maintained.

7. The Data Protection Officer last appointed under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 shall

take the role of Data Protection Officer under this Regulation and shall continue to

exercise their functions until the end of their term of office as determined under

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. The term of office of that Data Protection Officer may

be renewed once under this Regulation, provided that the overall duration of their

EN 85 EN

term of office, including any period served under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, does

not exceed eight years

8. This Regulation shall not affect the validity of cooperation agreements and working

arrangements concluded by Eurojust under Decision 2002/187/JHA or Regulation

(EU) 2018/1727. Such cooperation agreements and working arrangements shall

remain in force and shall be applied until they expire, or are amended or replaced.

9. Decisions adopted by the College, the Executive Board and the Administrative

Director, as well as implementing measures and internal rules adopted under

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, shall remain in force under this Regulation unless

otherwise decided by the Management Board in the application of this Regulation.

10. Budgetary commitments, financial operations and contractual obligations entered

into under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 shall remain valid and shall continue to be

executed in accordance with this Regulation. Financial support provided to joint

investigation teams under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 shall continue to be

administered in accordance with this Regulation. The discharge procedure in respect

of budgets approved on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 shall be carried out

in accordance with the rules established by that Regulation.

11. The first single programming document adopted under this Regulation shall cover

the period beginning on [date]. Until that document becomes definitive, the single

programming document adopted under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 for the relevant

period shall continue to apply.

12. Transfers of personal data to third countries or international organisations carried out

before the date of application of this Regulation shall remain valid, provided that

they comply with Union law as applicable prior to that date. Where ongoing transfers

were based on provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 that differ from those of

Regulation 2018/1725, such transfers shall be brought into compliance with

Regulation 2018/1725 within [X months] of its date of application

13. The Headquarters Agreement concluded between Eurojust and the Kingdom of the

Netherlands under Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 200263 shall

remain in force. Where necessary, Eurojust and the Kingdom of the Netherlands

shall adapt that Agreement to bring it into compliance with this Regulation within [X

months] of its date of application.

Article 87

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in

the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from [...].

63 Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight

against serious crime (OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1), as amended by Council Decision 2003/659/JHA (OJ L 245,

29.9.2003, p. 44) and Council Decision 2009/426/JHA (OJ L 138, 4.6.2009, p. 14).

EN 86 EN

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in

accordance with the Treaties.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

EN 87 EN

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL AND DIGITAL STATEMENT- AGENCIES

Contents

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............................................... 89

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative .................................................................................... 89

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned ............................................................................................ 89

1.3. Objective(s) ................................................................................................................ 89

1.3.1. General objective(s) ................................................................................................... 89

1.3.2. Specific objective(s) ................................................................................................... 89

1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact .................................................................................... 90

1.3.4. Indicators of performance .......................................................................................... 90

1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to: ............................................................................... 91

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative ............................................................................ 92

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative .......................................................... 92

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g.

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For

the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting

from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise

created by Member States alone. ............................................................................... 93

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past ................................................ 93

1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with

other appropriate instruments ..................................................................................... 94

1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for

redeployment .............................................................................................................. 94

1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact .................................. 95

1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned ........................................................... 96

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................................. 97

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules .................................................................................. 97

2.2. Management and control system(s) ........................................................................... 97

2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation

mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed ................ 97

2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up

to mitigate them.......................................................................................................... 98

2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between

the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the

expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure) ......................................... 98

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities .............................................................. 99

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE .......... 101

EN 88 EN

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s)

affected ..................................................................................................................... 101

3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations ................................. 102

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations.................................. 102

3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget ........................................................................... 102

3.2.8. Estimated human resources and the use of appropriations required in a decentralised

agency ...................................................................................................................... 107

3.2.9. Overview of the contribution agreements integrated in the budget ............................. 110

EN 89 EN

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF

THE COUNCIL recasting Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the European Union Agency for

Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council

Decision 2002/187/JHA.

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned

Criminal justice cooperation, fight against cross-border crime.

1.3. Objective(s)

1.3.1. General objective(s)

The revision of the Eurojust Regulation seeks to better attain the goals that the

Treaties set out for the Agency.

In particular it aims to enhance Eurojust's role in supporting and strengthening

coordination and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting

authorities in cross-border cases and thus strengthen its role as a hub of criminal

justice cooperation in the Union's justice and security architecture.

This revision is part of a broader legislative package intended to ensure a high level

of security across the EU through measures that prevent and combat crime, and that

foster coordination and cooperation between competent authorities in the criminal

justice domain.

1.3.2. Specific objective(s)

The general objective is articulated into two interrelated specific objectives, which

address the structural and functional limitations that currently constraints Eurojust's

capacity to fully exploit its potential in the fight against cross-border crime.

Specific objective 1: To make Eurojust's support and coordination action more

efficient, timely, and strategically focused across the full lifecycle of serious cross-

border crime.

Eurojust's focus on operations (work on criminal cases) will be maximised. This will

result from a revision of its governance structure, aimed at streamlining decision-

making processes and relieving National Members (judges and prosecutors leading

the operations) from their administrative burden. The tasks and competences of the

Agency will be updated and its proactivity enhanced, to enable Eurojust to better

address the new realities of cross-border crime and keep pace with cooperation

needs.

Specific objective 2: To achieve more institutionalised cooperation and more timely

information exchanges between Eurojust and EU and international partners.

The degree of institutionalisation of cooperation with partners will be increased

through the strenghtening of reciprocal notification obligations and the improvement

of information exchange systems. This is intended to maximise opportunities for

detection of criminal activity and early invovement of competent judicial authorities.

EN 90 EN

1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

The revision of the Eurojust Regulation is expected to deliver significant, measurable

impacts for Member States, victims, and EU citizens by strengthening Eurojust’s

operational role in combating seriosu corss-border crime, including, most notably,

organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime, and financial crime.

The proposal is anticipated to minimise the handling-time of support requests

from Member States and maximise the added value of Eurojust’s coordination

effort. This will derive from a strenghtened 'filtering' system for support requests –

so that they are dealt with through the appropriate channels and that Eurojust can

focus on complex, multilateral cases. In addition, new tasks for the Agency and

powers of the National Members will lead to better support to the national

authorities, early invovlement of judicial authorities in cross-border

investigations, and ultimately a higher success rate in prosecutions.

Efficiency gains will stem from the reorganisation of the governance system and

enhanced coherence with the operations of Europol and the EPPO. The new

framework is envisaged to free up resources for operational activities by shifting

responsibilities for administrative and management decisions and streamlining

decision-making processes. Enhanced cooperation and mutual involvement with

partners are expected to limit overlapping activities, exploit synergies and avoid

duplication of work.

The revision will also strengthen external cooperation, formalising structured

channels for engagement with third country authorities, ensuring faster and smoother

follow up to judicial requests.

Cumulatively, these measures will transform Eurojust from a reactive coordinator

into a proactive judicial hub, reinforcing the EU’s ability to detect, investigate,

and prosecute cross-border crime.

The reform aligns with EU strategic priorities, delivers tangible benefits for

beneficiaries (judiciaries, law enforcement, victims), and ensures long-term

coherence with the broader EU justice and security architecture.

1.3.4. Indicators of performance

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements.

The achievement of the objectves of the reform will be monitored mainly through the

following indicators:

1. Time-share spent by National Members on administrative tasks.

The reform aims to reduce the administrative workload of National Members.

Moving from a current baseline of approximately 40% of their overall workload, this

share is expected to decrease to around 20-25% within two years from the entry into

application of the revised Regulation, taking into account a transitional adjustment

period, and to reach a steady-state level of 10-15% within five years. Progress

against this indicator will be monitored through the Commission's involvement in the

Executive Board and Management Board, and assessed in the context of the next

evaluation of the Regulation and Agency.

EN 91 EN

2. Number of own-initiative cases64.

Progress towards a more proactive Eurojust will be reflected by a higher number of

own-initiative cases opened and handled by the Agency. Following an initial

adjustment phase, a gradual increase is expected, with the annual average number of

own-initiative cases opened increasing by 10-15% within five years. To avoid

distortions resulting from the normal year-on-year fluctuations in Eurojust casework,

the baseline will be calculated on the basis of the average annual number of own-

initiative cases opened during the five years preceding the entry into application of

the revised Regulation. Progress will be assessed against that baseline by reference to

the corresponding annual average over the five years following its entry into

application, using the data reported in Eurojust's Consolidated Annual Activity

Report (CAAR).

3. Share of ‘simple’ cases handled by Eurojust.

The reform should bring to a gradual but significant reduction in the share of

bilateral and simpler cases handled by Eurojust. While a residual share of 20-25% is

expected to remain, reflecting cases that initially appear complex or are escalated

from the European Justice Network, a gradual reduction is expected to reach around

60% within two years, down to 40% within five years, then 20-25% within ten

years. The baseline will be determined by reference to the share of simple cases in

the total number of cases opened in the year preceding the entry into application of

the revised Regulation. Progress will be monitored on the basis of the statistics and

KPIs regularly reported by Eurojust in its CAARs.

4. Number of follow-ups to system “hits”65.

Improved information exchange with EU partners, in particular Europol, is expected,

notably through an increase in follow-ups to “hits” identified in information systems,

reflecting enhanced timeliness and relevance. The baseline will be determined by

reference to the number of follow-ups to hits recorded in the year preceding the entry

into application of the revised Regulation. An increase of up to 50% may be expected

within five years. Progress will be monitored on the basis of the data reported in

Eurojust's CAARs, cross-checked against corresponding data reported in Europol's

CAARs.

1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to:

a new action

a new action following a pilot project / preparatory action66

the extension of an existing action

a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action

64 Own-initiative cases are cases opened by Eurojust proactively, on the basis of information received,

analytical work carried out and links identified between investigations, in order to bring situations of

potential judicial interest to the attention of the competent national authorities, rather than merely responding

to requests for support or coordination from Member States. 65 A hit in the hit/no-hit system is a positive match indicating that information held by Eurojust corresponds to

information held by another competent authority or EU partner, without automatically disclosing the

underlying data, and may therefore signal a possible link between investigations requiring judicial follow-up

or coordination. A follow-up to a hit is the subsequent transmission, where appropriate and in accordance

with the applicable legal framework, of the relevant information necessary to assess and act upon that link. 66 As referred to in Article 58(2), point (a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

EN 92 EN

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative

The initiative is expected to require a gradual implementation over the course of the

2028–2034 MFF period.

Taking into account the expected timeline for negotiations in the Council and

subsequently with the European Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure,

political agreement and entry into force of the revised Regulation are currently

estimated towards the end of 2027. The application of the Regulation and the roll-out

of the related implementation measures are expected to start progressively from 2028

onwards.

The Regulation is expected to enter into application as a whole, accompanied by

transitional provisions governing the shift from the current governance and

operational model to the revised framework.

The new competences entrusted to Eurojust would become applicable upon entry

into force of the Regulation. At the same time, a gradual adaptation of working

practices and a progressive evolution in the nature and volume of support requests

from Member States are expected.

Investments in Eurojust's IT infrastructure are expected to start during the first year

of application of the revised Regulation. Expenditure would follow the normal

development cycle of IT projects, including design, development, testing,

deployment and maintenance phases, and would be progressively disbursed in line

with project implementation milestones.

As Eurojust would start exercising its new competences from the entry into

application of the revised Regulation, recruitment of most additional staff is also

expected to begin from 2028 onwards. Recruitment would be phased in accordance

with Eurojust’s administrative and HR capacity to conduct recruitment and

onboarding procedures, which Eurojust estimates at a maximum of approximately 20

additional staff members per year.

An initial recruitment phase in 2028 would focus on addressing short-term

operational and technical needs. This would notably include the recruitment of

contract agents supporting the adaptation of the hit/no-hit system and the

development of IT infrastructures, including improvements to workflows supporting

Joint Investigation Teams and Joint Operational Platforms. Recruitment would also

prioritise the areas identified by Eurojust as operational priorities, generally focusing

on staff directly supporting core operational activities, in particular SNEs reinforcing

National Desks in view of increasing casework.

During the subsequent years of the MFF period, and progressively as Eurojust

expands its activities in the new areas covered by the revised Regulation, additional

temporary agents would be recruited to take up newly assigned tasks, including

enhanced support to practitioners in areas such as e-evidence and asset recovery.

A key milestone foreseen between 2030 and 2031 is the extension of Eurojust's

evidence storage capacities. In particular, the current Core International Crimes

Evidence Database (CICED), which is expected to be integrated into the Case

Management System, would be enhanced and expanded in order to store and

preserve evidence relating to other forms of serious cross-border crime. In parallel,

EN 93 EN

the main recruitment phase of temporary agents with analyst officer/assistant profiles

would take place.

The reinforcement and recruitment plan is expected to be substantially completed

between 2032 and 2033. Staffing levels are then expected to stabilise for 2034 and

the post-MFF period. Non-staff expenditure, by contrast, is expected to decrease

progressively after the initial investment phase, with remaining costs mainly linked

to maintenance and operational support following the completion of the main

development and enhancement projects.

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g.

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For

the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting

from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise

created by Member States alone.

Reasons for action at EU level (ex-ante): Eurojust's functions (coordination,

cooperation facilitation, and operational support) are transnational by nature and

cannot be performed effectively solely on Member State level. The agency provides

a neutral EU-level perspective across jurisdictions, facilitates multilateral

cooperation in parallel, and ensures that no Member State is placed at a disadvantage.

Scale and complexity of cross-border investigations render EU-level coordination

indispensable for national prosecutorial and judicial authorities, calling for EU-level

action and thus adhering to the subsidiarity principle. Eurojust offers operational,

legal, and strategic value that improves the functioning of national systems and the

coherence of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Action by Eurojust

does not replace that of national authorities but enhances it through services of

support, coordination and stimulation.

Expected generated EU added value (ex-post): There are clear ecomonies of scale

and efficiency gains by further improving Eurojust, enabling it to bring together

expertise from national practicioners in one agency, coordinate fast and more

efficiently in the fight against transnational crime, avoiding duplication and

conflicting investigations.

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

DG JUST has relevant policy and legislative experience stemming from the

preparation and implementation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, which established

Eurojust as a decentralised agency and replaced the previous framework set out in

Council Decision 2002/187/JHA.

Further lessons have been drawn from the continuous monitoring of Eurojust’s

functioning, including through the involvement of DG JUST, as parent DG, in the

Agency’s governance structures. This experience culminated in the 2025 evaluation

of the Eurojust Regulation and of the Agency’s functioning.

A key lesson learned is that the institutional design of an agency's governance

structure must be sufficiently streamlined, functional and clearly allocated, with

responsibilities and related accountability. Decision-making processes should be as

efficient as possible, while administrative burden should be kept to the minimum

necessary.

Experience has also shown that established working practices and institutional

culture can be difficult to change through soft measures alone. Targeted advocacy or

EN 94 EN

limited adjustments may not be sufficient where the governance framework itself

does not create clear incentives for change.

In particular, where institutional arrangements leave grey areas in the allocation of

responsibilities, or do not provide sufficient clarity on accountability for certain

decisions, this may result in complex and lengthy decision-making processes. This

can be further compounded by an excessive reliance on consensus-building, even for

matters of administrative or managerial nature.

These lessons have informed the preparation of the present initiative, in particular as

regards the need to ensure a governance framework that is clear, efficient and

capable of supporting Eurojust’s operational mandate.

1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with

other appropriate instruments

While the proposal requires resources in addition to those included in the

Commission proposal for the MFF 2028-2034, the need to reinforce Eurojust’s

capacity is fully justified by the broader context of the EU’s future security needs.

Additional resources are necessary to ensure that Eurojust can keep pace with

evolving and increasingly complex forms of crime, cooperate effectively with its

partners, preserve the continuum between law enforcement action and judicial

follow-up, and ultimately deliver on the objectives of the reform. These

considerations will need to be duly reflected in the negotiations on the next MFF,

with a view to ensuring that adequate resources are allocated to Eurojust within the

future financial framework.

The amount of appropriations to be allocated to the agency in the next MFF is

indicative and subject to the agreement on the MFF. It should be integrated into

the Agency’s subsidy due to the permanent nature of the tasks allocated by this

proposal and will be compensated, if relevant, by an equivalent reduction of a

relevant programme envelope under the same MFF heading. If a compensatory

reduction is needed, the resources allocated to the Agency may also need to be

revised through the annual budgetary procedure.

1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for

redeployment

The revision of the legal framework governing Eurojust is designed to strengthen the

Agency's operational contribution to the prevention and combating of serious cross-

border crime, while ensuring that resources are used in the most efficient and

proportionate manner. In assessing the available financing options, particular

attention has been paid to the Agency's capacity to absorb new tasks through internal

reorganisation, reprioritisation and efficiency gains, in line with the principles of

sound financial management.

Eurojust has already undertaken substantial efforts to recalibrate the internal

allocation of resources in order to maximise operational delivery. This has included a

consequential redeployment of staff and budgetary resources from administrative and

support functions towards operational activities directly linked to judicial

cooperation, coordination of investigations and prosecutions, and support to Member

States in complex cross-border cases. By now Eurojust reached the limits of internal

reallocation of staff.

EN 95 EN

The Agency has pursued these redeployment adjustments while maintaining to the

best of its capacity the continuity and quality of essential corporate services,

including governance, security, data protection, information technology, human

resources and financial management, the latter albeit regular observations by the

Court of Auditors of payment delays, mostly due to lack of resources and the

implementation of SUMMA as one to the 3 pilot agencies. Efficiency gains have

been achieved through the streamlining of internal workflows, increased

digitalisation of administrative processes, strengthened intra-agency cooperation, and

the optimisation of support structures. These efforts have enabled Eurojust to

reinforce its operational focus despite the absence of corresponding increases in

establishment plan posts or financial appropriations.

In the context of the present revision, the Agency will be required to continue to

actively pursue opportunities for further efficiency gains and internal redeployment

wherever feasible. This includes continued efforts to optimise the balance between

administrative and operational expenditure, to simplify procedures, and to exploit

synergies arising from digital transformation and cross-organisational cooperation.

Such measures will continue to be implemented in a manner that safeguards the

Agency's capacity to fulfil its legal, governance, cybersecurity, data protection and

accountability obligations.

At the same time, the assessment demonstrates that the scope for additional

redeployment is inherently limited. The substantial reallocation of resources already

undertaken by the Agency has reduced administrative capacities to levels closely

aligned with minimum compliance and support requirements. Further transfers of

resources from administrative to operational functions, if pursued without

corresponding reinforcement, would risk affecting the sustainability, resilience and

legal compliance of the Agency's support structures, particularly in areas subject to

increasing regulatory and security obligations.

Against this background, while efficiency gains and internal reprioritisation will

continue to form an integral part of the Agency's management approach, these

measures alone cannot fully absorb the additional workload and enhanced

operational expectations resulting from the revised mandate. The proposed financing

approach therefore reflects a balanced assessment combining continued internal

efficiency efforts with the need to ensure that the Agency possesses sufficient

operational and technical capacity to effectively implement the objectives of the

revised Regulation, enabling Eurojust to keep pace with broader EU justice and

security context.

1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact

limited duration

–  in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

–  financial impact from YYYY to YYYY for commitment appropriations and

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.

unlimited duration

– Implementation with a start-up period from 2028 to 2033,

– followed by full-scale operation.

EN 96 EN

1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned

Direct management by the Commission

–  by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;

–  by the executive agencies

Shared management with the Member States

Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:

–  third countries or the bodies they have designated

–  international organisations and their agencies (to be specified)

–  the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund

–  bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation

–  public law bodies

–  bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that

they are provided with adequate financial guarantees

–  bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with

the implementation of a public-private partnership and that are provided with

adequate financial guarantees

–  bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the

common foreign and security policy pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on

European Union, and identified in the relevant basic act

– bodies established in a Member State, governed by the private law of a

Member State or Union law and eligible to be entrusted, in accordance with

sector-specific rules, with the implementation of Union funds or budgetary

guarantees, to the extent that such bodies are controlled by public law bodies or

by bodies governed by private law with a public service mission, and are provided

with adequate financial guarantees in the form of joint and several liability by the

controlling bodies or equivalent financial guarantees and which may be, for each

action, limited to the maximum amount of the Union support.

EN 97 EN

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules

The implementation of the revised mandate of Eurojust will be monitored and

reported in accordance with the existing framework applicable to decentralised

agencies, while taking into account the specific operational nature of the Agency’s

activities in the field of criminal justice cooperation. Monitoring arrangements will

aim to ensure transparency, accountability, sound financial management and

effective performance measurement in relation to the objectives pursued under the

revised Regulation.

In line with the Agency's governance framework, Eurojust will report regularly on

the implementation of its activities through its annual and multiannual programming

documents, in particular the Single Programming Document (SPD), which integrates

strategic planning, annual work programming and resource planning. The SPD will

set out the operational objectives, expected outputs, performance indicators and

resource allocation linked to the implementation of the revised mandate. Progress

achieved against these objectives will be assessed and reported annually through the

CAAR, enabling the Executive Board, the College of Eurojust, the Commission (DG

JUST), the European Parliament and the Council to monitor implementation,

efficiency and operational effectiveness.

Monitoring will also rely on established internal control and performance

management mechanisms, including regular reporting by the Administrative Director

to the Executive Board, regarding external audits and evaluations of the activities of

the Agency, including the implementation of its internal risk management processes.

Where appropriate, key performance indicators and qualitative assessments will be

further refined in order to capture the impact of the enhanced operational support

provided by the Administration to the National Desks, and theron where appropriate

and measurable to national judicial authorities, including in relation to coordination

of cross-border investigations and prosecutions, judicial cooperation tools,

digitalisation measures and support in complex criminal cases.

External oversight will continue to be ensured in accordance with the applicable

financial and institutional framework. In particular, the accounts and underlying

transactions of Eurojust will remain subject to annual external audit by the European

Court of Auditors, in accordance with the Financial Regulation applicable to

decentralised agencies. The Agency will also remain subject to the annual discharge

procedure conducted by the European Parliament upon recommendation of the

Council. In addition, evaluations of the implementation and effectiveness of the

Regulation may be carried out by the Commission in accordance with the Better

Regulation principles and the evaluation provisions contained in the legal

framework.

2.2. Management and control system(s)

2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation

mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed

This Legislative Financial Statement includes an increase of the contribution to the

Agency for the next period 2028-2034. It relates to ensuring adequate resources for

the new activities under the revised mandate to be implemented in accordance with

the expectation of the legislator and stakeholders. The financial and staff resources

EN 98 EN

necessary to conduct these tasks will be included in the EU contribution to the

Agency and in the overall staff allocation to the agency during the annual budgetary

procedure. The Commission, in the context of its supervision of decentralised

entities, will apply its respective control strategies to this expenditure. In addition,

every financial year, the European Parliament, following a recommendation from the

Council, grants discharge to each EU agency for the implementation of its budget;

this procedure also applies to the Agency.

2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up

to mitigate them

The implementation of the revised mandate of Eurojust will continue to be supported

by a robust internal control framework designed to ensure legality and regularity of

operations, sound financial management and effective risk mitigation. Building on

experience gained under previous programming cycles, the Agency has identified

and already improved a number of operational and administrative processes where

complexity, fragmentation of procedures or increasing regulatory requirements were

prone to generate elevated risks of error or inefficiency. Particular attention has

therefore been given over the years to simplifying workflows, clarifying

responsibilities and strengthening control mechanisms in areas involving operational

expenditure, procurement, grants, information management and digital cooperation

tools.

The measures introduced were sought in order to address the root causes of

previously identified risks and potential error sources. In particular, the Agency has

pursued the simplification and standardisation of financial and administrative

procedures, including greater use of harmonised templates, clearer operational

guidance, streamlined verification processes and increased digitalisation of

workflows (including eSignature). These measures have reduced the risk of

inconsistent application of rules and improve traceability and auditability of

transactions. In parallel, Eurojust continues to reinforce staff awareness and

compliance capacity through targeted training, updated internal guidance and

strengthened coordination between operational, legal, financial and internal control

functions.

For activities assessed as inherently higher risk due to their operational sensitivity,

complexity or financial impact, the Agency will continue to apply reinforced ex-ante

and ex-post controls proportionate to the level of risk identified. This includes

enhanced verification procedures, risk-based sampling, strengthened supervisory

review and targeted monitoring of sensitive transactions and operational support

activities. Internal Audit Service (IAS) recommendations, lessons learned exercises

and findings from external oversight bodies, including the European Court of

Auditors, will continue to feed into the continuous improvement of the Agency’s

control environment. These arrangements are intended to ensure that the enhanced

operational role foreseen under the revised Regulation is implemented in a

financially sound, compliant and resilient manner.

2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between

the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the

expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure)

Given that the implementation of the Regulation is primarily carried out under direct

management and through the Agency's own operational and administrative

EN 99 EN

structures, the costs of controls are expected to remain largely concentrated at

Agency level. Control-related expenditure mainly concerns financial verification,

procurement and contract management, information security, data protection

compliance, (financial) ex-ante and ex-post verification procedures integrated into

financial and operational workflows. The estimation of control costs is based on

existing administrative and financial management structures, and experience

gathered from previous implementation cycles and annual discharge procedures.

The overall cost of controls is considered proportionate to the financial volume

managed and to the specific risk profile associated with the Agency's activities.

Certain control functions necessarily generate comparatively higher administrative

costs due to the sensitive operational environment in which Eurojust operates,

including handling of operational cooperation data, secure information exchange,

judicial coordination support and compliance with evolving cybersecurity and data

protection obligations. In addition, the relatively specialised nature of the Agency’s

activities and the limited scale of certain operational expenditure lines may reduce

the scope for economies of scale compared to larger EU spending programmes. At

the same time, resource constraints and the absence of significant additional

administrative capacity require the Agency to pursue a risk-based and targeted

approach to controls, prioritising areas with higher inherent risk while simplifying

and streamlining lower-risk procedures wherever possible.

In line with the applicable Union internal control principles, the Agency aims to

maintain the expected level of risk of error below the materiality threshold of 2%

both at payment and at closure. This objective is supported by reinforced ex-ante

verification procedures, risk-based ex-post controls, continuous monitoring

mechanisms and regular supervisory review. Simplification measures introduced

under the revised framework, including standardised procedures, increased

digitalisation and clearer operational guidance and governance are expected to

further reduce the likelihood of errors linked to procedural complexity or inconsistent

application of rules. Nevertheless, the Agency's ability to sustain a high level of

control assurance while simultaneously responding to expanding operational

demands remains dependent on maintaining an appropriate balance between

operational reinforcement and minimum administrative and control capacities.

Continuous monitoring of the effectiveness and proportionality of the control

framework will therefore remain necessary throughout the implementation period.

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

Eurojust will continue to apply the existing EU and Agency-level framework for the

prevention, detection and correction of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest and

other irregularities. The revision of the Regulation does not alter the Agency’s

obligations in this area. Eurojust will therefore maintain a comprehensive internal

control and anti-fraud environment based on the principles set out in the EU

Financial Regulation, the internal control framework applicable to decentralised

agencies and the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy.

Preventive measures include clear segregation of duties, systematic ex-ante

verification of financial and procurement procedures, risk-based controls, conflict-of-

interest management, secure and traceable financial workflows, staff awareness

measures and mandatory ethics and compliance obligations applicable to all staff and

seconded personnel.

EN 100 EN

The Agency will continue to cooperate as appropriate with the European Anti-Fraud

Office (OLAF), the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), within their

respective competences, and the European Court of Auditors.

Existing reporting, audit and investigative mechanisms will remain fully applicable,

including internal reporting channels and whistleblower protection measures in

accordance with the relevant EU framework. In addition, Eurojust will continue to

regularly assess fraud-related risks within its corporate risk management processes

and adapt mitigating measures where necessary, notably in areas involving

procurement, JIT grants, information technology, external contracts and operational

support expenditure.

EN 101 EN

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget

line(s) affected

• Existing budget lines

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of

multiannual

financial

framework

Budget line Type of

expenditure Contribution

Number

Diff./Non-

diff.

from

EFTA

countries

from

candidate

countries

and

potential

candidates

From

other

third

countries

other assigned

revenue

2 [E.07100700] Diff. NO NO NO NO

EN 102 EN

3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below

3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework Number 2

DG: / Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

TOTAL MFF 2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Operational appropriations

Budget line Commitments (1a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Payments (2a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Budget line Commitments (1b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Payments (2b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope of specific programmes67

Budget line (3) 0

TOTAL appropriations Commitments =1a+1b+3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

for DG / Payments =2a+2b+3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EUR million (to three decimal places)

67 Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research.

EN 103 EN

[Agency]: Eurojust Year

2028 Year

2029 Year

2030 Year

2031 Year

2032 Year

2033 Year

2034

TOTAL

MFF 2028-

2034

Budget line: E.07100700 / EU Budget contribution to the agency

Former contribution agreements incorporated into the regular budget68 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 35.763

Budget line: E.07100700 / EU Budget contribution to the agency

Extra resources requested for the new mandate69 2.988 6.454 9.086 12.077 16.689 17.382 18.476 83.152

Total increase in the EU contribution to the agency linked to the new

mandate 8.097 11.56314.19517.18621.79822.49123.585118.915

Budget line: E.07100700 / EU Budget contribution to the agency

BASELINE: Commission proposal MFF 2028-203470 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 506.520

Budget line: E.07100700 / EU Budget contribution to the agency

TOTAL

80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

* The amount of appropriations to be allocated to the agency in the next MFF is indicative and subject to the agreement on the MFF. It should

be integrated into the Agency’s subsidy due to the permanent nature of the tasks allocated by this proposal and will be compensated, if

relevant, by an equivalent reduction of a relevant programme envelope under the same MFF heading. If a compensatory reduction is needed,

the resources allocated to the Agency may also need to be revised through the annual budgetary procedure.

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

68 The inclusion of contribution agreements in the EU budget contribution to Eurojust is offset by an equivalent reduction in the envelopes of the respective programmes

from which those agreements were previously financed, the increase therefore does not affect the overall financial programming.

69 The figures in this row are requested on top of the envisaged financial programming.

70 The 2028–2034 MFF proposal is presented in 2025 prices.

EN 104 EN

2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2028-2034

TOTAL

operational

appropriations

(including

contribution to

decentralised

agency)

Commitments (4) 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

Payments (5) 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

TOTAL appropriations of an

administrative nature financed

from the envelope for specific

programmes

(6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL

appropriations

under

HEADING

<2.>

Commitments =4+6 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

of the

multiannual

financial

framework

Payments =5+6 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

EN 105 EN

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

• TOTAL

operational

appropriations

(all operational

headings)

Commitments (4) 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

Payments (5) 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

• TOTAL appropriations of an

administrative nature financed

from the envelope for specific

programmes (all operational

headings)

(6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL

appropriations

under

Headings 1 to

3

Commitments =4+6 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

of the

multiannual

financial

framework

(Reference

amount)

Payments =5+6 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

EN 106 EN

Heading of multiannual financial framework 4 ‘Administrative expenditure’

EUR million (to three decimal places)

DG: / Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF

2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

 Human resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Other administrative expenditure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL DG /Appropriations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 4 of

the multiannual financial framework

(Total

commitments =

Total payments) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

TOTAL

appropriations

under HEADINGS

1 to 4

Commitments 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

of the multiannual

financial framework Payments 80.457 83.923 86.555 89.546 94.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

EN 107 EN

3.2.8. Estimated human resources and the use of appropriations required in a

decentralised agency

* The amount of appropriations to be allocated to the agency in the next MFF is indicative and subject

to the agreement on the MFF. It should be integrated into the Agency's subsidy due to the permanent

nature of the tasks allocated by this proposal and will be compensated, if relevant, by an equivalent

reduction of a relevant programme envelope under the same MFF heading. If a compensatory

reduction is needed, the resources allocated to the Agency may also need to be revised through the

annual budgetary procedure.

Staff requirements (full-time equivalent units)

The figure in brackets (+n) indictes the increase from the previous year, i.e., the number of staff

members recruited in the current year.

A total of +87 extra FTEs over the course of the next MFF is envisaged, plus the stabilisation or hiring

of 16 FTEs employed by Eurojust to carry out projects based on contribution agreements.

Agency: Eurojust Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

Temporary agents

(AD Grades) 4 (+4) 8 (+4) 13 (+5) 19 (+6) 28 (+9) 36 (+8) 36 (+0)

Temporary agents

(AST grades) 0 (+0) 2 (+2) 3 (+1) 4 (+1) 4 (+0) 4 (+0) 4 (+0)

Temporary agents

(AD+AST) subtotal 4 (+4) 10 (+6)16 (+6)23 (+7)32 (+9) 40 (+8) 40 (+0)

Contract agents 0 (+0) 4 (+4) 8 (+4) 12 (+4) 16 (+4) 20 (+4) 20 (+0)

Seconded national experts 0 (+0) 6 (+6) 15 (+9) 21 (+6) 25 (+4) 27 (+2) 27 (+0)

Contract agents and

seconded national experts

subtotal

0 (+0) 10 (+10)23 (+13)33 (+10)41 (+8) 47 (+6) 47 (+0)

TOTAL staff (on top of

financial programming) 4 (+4) 20 (+16) 39 (+19) 56 (+17) 73 (+17) 87 (+14) 87 (+0)

Staff hired/stabilised

through the resources

coming from (former)

contribution agreements –

Temporary agents (AD)

11 (+11)11 (+0)11 (+0)11 (+0)11 (+0)11 (+0)11 (+0)

Staff hired/stabilised

through the resources

coming from (former)

contribution agreements –

Contract agents

5 (+5)5 (+0)5 (+0)5 (+0)5 (+0)5 (+0)5 (+0)

TOTAL staff

hired/stabilised through the

resources coming from

(former) contribution

agreements

16 (+16)16 (+0)16 (+0)16 (+0)16 (+0)16 (+0)16 (+0)

Total staff for the proposal 20 (+20) 36 (+16) 55 (+19) 72 (+17) 89 (+17) 103

(+14) 103 (+0)

EN 108 EN

BASELINE: Commission

proposal MFF 2028-203471

Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

Temporary agents

(AD Grades) 141 141 141 141 141 141 141

Temporary agents

(AST grades) 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

Temporary agents

(AD+AST) subtotal 251 251251251251 251 251

Contract agents 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Seconded national experts 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Contract agents and

seconded national experts

subtotal

42 42424242 42 42

TOTAL staff (baseline) 293 293 293 293 293 293 293

TOTAL staff

(revised Eurojust)

Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031 Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

Temporary agents

(AD Grades) 156 160 165 171 180 188 188

Temporary agents

(AST grades) 110 112 113 114 114 114 114

Temporary agents

(AD+AST) subtotal 266 272278285294 302 302

Contract agents 23 27 31 35 39 43 43

Seconded national experts 24 30 39 45 49 51 51

Contract agents and

seconded national experts

subtotal

47 57708088 94 94

TOTAL staff (total) 313 329 348 365 382 396 396

71 Staffing level prior to the enter into application of the revised Regulation, based on the authorised posts for

2026. The envisaged financial programming foresees Eurojust’s staffing level as stable.

EN 109 EN

Appropriations covered by the EU budget contribution in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Agency: Eurojust Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

TOTAL

2028 - 2034

Title 1: Staff expenditure

on top of the envisaged

financial programming

0.388

1.892

4.286 6.777 9.289 11.682 12.776 47.090

Title 2: Infrastructure and

operating expenditure

on top of the envisaged

financial programming

1.900 3.300 3.100 3.300 5.200 3.500 3.500 23.800

Title 3: Operational

expenditure

on top of the envisaged

financial programming

0.700 1.262 1.700 2.000 2.200 2.200 2.200 12.262

TOTAL of

appropriations covered

by the EU budget on top

of the envisaged

financial programming

2.9886.4549.08612.07716.68917.38218.47683.152

(Former) contribution

agreements

incorporated into the

regular budget

(All Titles)

5.1095.1095.109 5.1095.1095.1095.10935.763

Commission proposal

MFF 2028-2034 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 72.360 506.520

TOTAL of

appropriations covered

by the EU budget

80.457 83.92386.55589.54694.158 94.851 95.945 625.435

Overview/summary of human resources and appropriations (in EUR million) required by the

proposal/initiative in a decentralised agency

Agency: Eurojust Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

TOTAL

2028 -

2034

Temporary agents

(AD+AST) 15

(+15) 21 (+6) 27 (+6) 34 (+7) 43 (+9) 51 (+8) 51 (+0) 51

Contract agents 5 (+5) 9 (+4) 13 (+4) 17 (+4) 21 (+4) 25 (+4) 25 (+0) 25

Seconded national experts 0 (+0) 6 (+6) 15 (+9) 21 (+6) 25 (+4) 27 (+2) 27 (+0) 27

Total staff (required by

the proposal, including

staff hired/stabilised

through former

contribution agreements)

20

(+20) 36 (+16) 55 (+19) 72 (+17) 89 (+17) 103 (+14) 103 (+0) 103

EN 110 EN

Appropriations covered by

the EU budget 8.097 11.563 14.195 17.186 21.798 22.491 23.585 118.915

Appropriations covered by

fees

(if applicable)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appropriations co-financed

(if applicable) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations

(required by the proposal) 8.09711.56314.19517.18621.79822.49123.585118.915

3.2.9. Overview of the contribution agreements integrated in the budget

Eurojust receives funding for the following contribution agreements:

Project Duration

Budget over

duration

(mln)

FTE/year Counterpart Aim of the project

EuroMed

Justice

project

4 years € 6,000,000

(1.5 million ca

pa)

6.5 European

Commission –

DG MENA

The project aims to enhance judicial

cooperation between Member States

and South Partner countries

(Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,

Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine

and Tunisia).

SIRIUS

project

3 years € 1,475,622

(0.492 million

ca pa)

4 European

Commission

Service for

Foreign Policy

Instruments

The project aims to improve cross

border access to e-evidence by

providing knowledge and tools to

public authorities and facilitating

their cooperation with service

providers located all around the

world.

WB

CRIM

JUST

project

4 years € 6,000,000

(1.5 million ca

pa)

5European

Commission –

DG ENEST

The project aims to support

operational cooperation, including

through JITs, among Western

Balkan countries and between them

and EU Member States. By

Commission Implementing

Decision C(2025) 4066 final of 24

June 2025, the Commission

financed a three-year phase II of the

project, starting on 1 January 2027,

with a budget EUR 6 million for the

Western Balkans and EUR 3 million

for the Eastern Partnership.

ICPA 13

months

€ 5,000,000

(4.617 million

ca pa)

12 European

Commission –

DG ENEST

The centre aims to strengthen the

international judicial cooperation

efforts to ensure accountability for

the crime of aggression against

Ukraine.

EN 111 EN

IMPNA 4 years € 3,000,000

(0.750 million

ca pa)

3 European

Commission –

DG INTPA

The project aims to contribute to

justice and accountability efforts for

core international crimes by

enhancing the cooperation between

civil society organisations and

national authorities investigating

and prosecuting core international

crimes in both EU and non-EU

countries.

The tasks carried out under the contribution agreements relating to the following projects have

become stably embedded in the Agency's mandate. As of the year of entry into application of the

revised Regulation, the funding currently received through these contribution agreements will be

integrated into Eurojust's budget. The corresponding increase in the EU contribution to Eurojust

for these activities is offset by an equivalent reduction in the envelopes of the respective

programmes. As a result, the overall financial programming remains unchanged.

The resources and staffing summarised below are included in the tables above indicating the EU

contribution to the decentralised agency.

Project / yearly budget Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

TOTAL

2028 -

2034

SIRIUS project 0.492 0.492 0.492 0.492 0.492 0.492 0.492 3.444

ICPA 4.617 4.617 4.617 4.617 4.617 4.617 4.617 32.319

TOTAL contribution 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 5.109 35.763

Project / staff Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

TOTAL

2028 -

2034

SIRIUS project 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

ICPA 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

TOTAL staff (TAs+CAs) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

The EuroMed Justice project, the WB CRIM JUST project and the IMPNA project, established on

an ad hoc basis and requiring the performance of tasks outside of Eurojust's mandate, will continue

to be operated on the basis of contribution agreements.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 24.6.2026

COM(2026) 570 final

ANNEXES 1 to 3

ANNEXES

to the Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and

repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727

{SEC(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 571 final} -

{SWD(2026) 572 final} - {SWD(2026) 573 final}

EN 1 EN

ANNEX I

List of forms of serious crime with which Eurojust is competent to deal in accordance with

Article 5(1)(a):

(1) terrorism;

(2) organised crime;

(3) drug trafficking;

(4) money-laundering activities;

(5) crime connected with nuclear and radioactive substances;

(6) immigrant smuggling;

(7) trafficking in human beings;

(8) motor vehicle crime;

(9) murder and grievous bodily injury;

(10) illicit trade in human organs and tissue;

(11) kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage taking;

(12) racism and xenophobia;

(13) robbery and aggravated theft;

(14) illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiquities and works of art;

(15) swindling and fraud;

(16) crime affecting the financial interests of the Union;

(17) insider dealing and financial market manipulation;

(18) racketeering and extortion;

(19) counterfeiting and product piracy;

(20) forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein;

(21) forgery of money and means of payment;

(22) computer crime, including cyberattacks;

(23) corruption;

(24) illicit trafficking in arms, ammunition and explosives;

(25) illicit trafficking in endangered animal species;

(26) illicit trafficking in endangered plant species and varieties;

(27) environmental crime, including ship source pollution;

(28) illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters;

(29) sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, including child abuse material and solicitation

of children for sexual purposes;

(30) gender-based violence;

(31) genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression;

(32) violation of Union restrictive measures.

EN 2 EN

ANNEX II

CATEGORIES OF PERSONAL DATA REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 46

(1) Categories of personal data referred to in Article 44(1):

(a) surname, maiden name, given names and any alias or assumed names;

(b) date and place of birth;

(c) nationality;

(d) sex;

(e) place of residence, profession and whereabouts of the person concerned;

(f) social security number or other official numbers used in the Member State to

identify individuals, driving licences, identification documents and passport

data, customs and Tax Identification Numbers;

(g) information concerning legal persons if it includes information relating to

identified or identifiable individuals who are the subject of a judicial

investigation or prosecution;

(h) details of accounts held with banks or other financial institutions;

(i) description and nature of the alleged offences, the date on which they were

committed, the criminal category of the offences and the progress of the

investigations;

(j) the facts pointing to an international extension of the case;

(k) details relating to alleged membership of a criminal organisation;

(l) telephone numbers, email addresses, traffic data and location data, as well as

any related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user;

(m) vehicle registration data;

(n) DNA profiles established from the non-coding part of DNA, photographs and

fingerprints.

(2) Categories of personal data referred to in Article 44(2):

(a) surname, maiden name, given names and any alias or assumed names;

(b) date and place of birth;

(c) nationality;

(d) sex;

(e) place of residence, profession and whereabouts of the person concerned;

(f) the description and nature of the offences involving the person concerned, the

date on which the offences were committed, the criminal category of the

offences and the progress of the investigations;

(g) social security number or other official numbers used by the Member States to

identify individuals, driving licences, identification documents and passport

data, customs and Tax Identification Numbers;

(h) details of accounts held with banks and other financial institutions;

EN 3 EN

(i) telephone numbers, email addresses, traffic data and location data, as well as

any related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user;

(j) vehicle registration data.

EN 4 EN

ANNEX III

Personal data referred to in Article 37(4), Article 41(1) and Article 44(5):

(1) information to identify the suspected, accused, convicted or acquitted person:

(a) for a natural person:

(i) surname (family name);

(ii) first names (given names);

(iii) any aliases;

(iv) date of birth;

(v) place of birth (town and country);

(vi) nationality or nationalities;

(vii) identification document (type and document number);

(viii) gender;

(ix) place of residence;

(b) for a legal person:

(i) business name;

(ii) legal form;

(iii) place of head office;

(c) for both natural and legal persons:

(i) telephone numbers;

(ii) email addresses;

(iii) details of accounts held with banks or other financial institutions;

(2) information on the terrorist offence:

(i) information concerning legal persons involved in the preparation or

commission of a terrorist offence;

(ii) legal qualification of the offence under national law;

(iii) applicable form of serious crime from the list referred to in Annex I;

(iv) any affiliation with a terrorist group;

(v) type of terrorism, such as jihadist, separatist, left-wing or right-wing;

(vi) brief summary of the case;

(3) information on the national proceedings:

(i) status of such proceedings;

(ii) responsible public prosecutor’s office;

(iii) case number;

EN 5 EN

(iv) date of opening of formal judicial proceedings;

(v) links with other relevant cases;

(4) additional information to identify the suspect:

(i) fingerprint data that have been collected in accordance with national law

during criminal proceedings;

(ii) photographs.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 24.6.2026

SWD(2026) 572 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Subsidiarity grid

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and

repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727

{COM(2026) 570 final} - {SEC(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 570 final} -

{SWD(2026) 571 final} - {SWD(2026) 573 final}

1

1. Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended

action?

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy

initiative?

The legal basis of the initiative is Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

Union (TFEU). Article 85(1) TFEU states that Eurojust's mission shall be to support and

strengthen coordination and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting

authorities in relation to serious crime affecting two or more Member States or requiring a

prosecution on common bases, based on operations conducted and information supplied by

the Member States' authorities and by Europol.

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or

supporting in nature?

In the area of freedom, security and justice, the Union’s competence is shared (Article 4§2

(j) TFEU).

2. Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act?

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 21:

- Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act?

- Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative

indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union

level?

In the context of the evaluation of the Eurojust Regulation (EJR) and impact assessment, the

Commission conducted numerous consultation activities, including public and targeted

stakeholder consultations. The consultations were carried out as widely as possible to receive

relevant input, evidence and explanations of the needs of different categories of stakeholders.

The consultation strategy was designed to ensure that the supporting study captures the

perspectives of a broad range of stakeholders, both internal and external to Eurojust. These

included notably Eurojust staff, national desks, national authorities and practitioners,

representatives of other EU agencies and bodies in the area of criminal justice, academics as

well as representatives of international organisations.

- A Call for Evidence was launched by the Commission and made available on the

“Have Your Say” website from 28 October 2025 until 3 December 2025, with 42

replies received.

- The Commission launched a public consultation in all 24 official EU languages. The

consultation was questionnaire-based. The consultation period was twelve weeks (3

December 2025 to 24 February 2026) with 20 replies received.

- An Online survey was conducted until 4 March 2026, targeting a range of stakeholder

types, including practitioners, the Eurojust administration and national desks, and

public officials. Several non-EU and EU countries

were represented. Practitioners from EU Member States accounted for nearly half of

all responses (48%), making them the most prominent stakeholder group in this

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN

2

survey, followed by members of the Eurojust administration. 429 replies have been

received.

- 115 Interviews with stakeholders have been carried out. These interviews covered

representatives of the Eurojust administration, national desks and liaison prosecutors,

EU agencies and bodies, EU and third country national-level stakeholders (authorities

and practitioners), and international organisations. They include in-person

consultation with Eurojust personnel during the site visit, as well as online interviews

with a range of stakeholders.

- In addition, other consultations of experts and senior officials representing Members

States have been carried out: technical workshops by Eurojust (vision 2035), two

meetings of the Consultative forum of the Prosecutors General and Directors of

Public Prosecutions of the EU Member States, working meeting with the Criminal

Law Expert Group (composed of practitioners and academics), exchanges with

experts and representatives of Member States during EU Council’s meetings

organised at technical and political levels (COPEN working parties and JHA

Councils).

The Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal includes a detailed statement with

qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the

action can best be achieved at Union level (see Chapter 3).

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying

the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the

conformity with the principle of subsidiarity?

Both documents accompanying the Commission’s legislative initiative, contain an adequate

justification that this legislative imitative aimed at revising the current Eurojust regulation

complies with the principle of subsidiarity as enshrined in Article 5(3) TFEU.

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed

action be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU

action)?

Eurojust is an EU Agency which has been set up to support national prosecutorial and judicial

authorities to cooperate in cross-border criminal cases. Given the very nature of Eurojust

being an EU agency, a revision of its mandate and functioning cannot be achieved by Member

States action alone. The issues addressed by the revision of Eurojust are inherently

transnational, as serious and organised crime increasingly operates across borders, exploits

differences between national legal systems, and affects all Member States. Individual

national authorities, while retaining core criminal justice competences, are limited in their

ability to ensure effective multilateral coordination, interoperable cooperation tools, and

consistent information exchange across jurisdictions.

Without EU-level action, judicial cooperation would risk fragmentation, delays,

inconsistencies in evidence handling, and weakened collective capacity to investigate and

prosecute cross-border offences, thereby undermining the objectives of the Area of Freedom,

Security and Justice under Article 67 TFEU. The growing complexity, scale, and

technological sophistication of cross-border criminal activity also place increasing pressure

on national authorities, many of which lack sufficient resources or operational capacities to

manage multinational investigations alone. Although national, regional, and local authorities

across the EU differ in their legal traditions and judicial structures, a strengthened Eurojust

3

mandate provides a neutral and overarching European framework capable of reconciling

these differences while ensuring coherent, efficient, and effective judicial cooperation

throughout the Union, thus enhancing the overall efficiency of the Union’s justice and

security architecture.

(a) Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems

being tackled? Have these been quantified?

Eurojust’s functions (coordination, cooperation facilitation, and operational support) are

transnational by nature and cannot be performed effectively by any single Member State. Its

Union-level structure allows it to take a neutral and overarching European view across

jurisdictions, facilitate simultaneous multilateral cooperation, and ensure that no Member

State is disadvantaged.

(b) Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core

objectives of the Treaty2 or significantly damage the interests of other Member

States?

The objectives pursued by the revision of the mandate of Eurojust cannot be sufficiently

achieved by Member States acting alone because serious cross-border crime inherently

affects several jurisdictions simultaneously. If national authorities acted independently, this

would risk fragmentation of judicial cooperation, inconsistencies in evidence handling, and

delays in coordination, thereby undermining the objectives of the Treaties relating to the Area

of Freedom, Security and Justice under Articles 67. The absence of EU-level action would

also negatively affect other Member States by weakening the collective capacity to

investigate and prosecute organised crime and other transnational offences.

(c) To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate

measures?

While Member States retain important competences in criminal justice and judicial

cooperation, their ability to enact appropriate measures individually is limited. National

authorities cannot by themselves ensure uniform coordination mechanisms, interoperable

judicial cooperation tools, or effective information exchange across the EU. Differences in

legal systems, procedural rules, and operational capacities create structural obstacles that

only an EU-level agency such as Eurojust can address through coordinated support, common

operational frameworks, and centralised cooperation mechanisms.

(d) How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects)

vary across the national, regional and local levels of the EU?

The problem primarily manifests itself at the transnational level, as criminal networks operate

across borders and exploit differences between national legal systems. At the national level,

authorities may face difficulties in obtaining evidence, coordinating prosecutions, or

executing judicial requests involving several Member States. At the regional and local levels,

prosecutors and law enforcement authorities encounter operational burdens linked to

increasingly complex cross-border investigations. Negative external factors and spill-over

effects are significant because ineffective action in one Member State may compromise

2 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en

4

investigations and prosecutions in others, thereby reducing the overall effectiveness of EU

criminal justice cooperation.

(e) Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States?

The problem is widespread across the EU rather than confined to a limited number of Member

States. Cross-border crime affects all Member States to varying degrees, irrespective of their

geographic location or legal tradition. The increasing digitalisation of crime, mobility within

the Schengen area, and the transnational nature of organised criminal networks mean that

even offences originating in one Member State frequently produce effects across the Union.

Consequently, all Member States have an interest in strengthening coordinated judicial

cooperation at EU level.

(f) Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure?

Member States are increasingly overstretched in achieving the objectives of effective cross-

border judicial cooperation on their own. The growing volume, complexity, and

technological sophistication of cross-border criminal cases place substantial pressure on

national judicial authorities, a trend confirmed by Europol’s reports on organised crime.

Individual Member States may lack sufficient resources, technical capacities, or access to

timely information necessary to manage complex multinational investigations effectively.

Strengthening the mandate of Eurojust helps alleviate these burdens by facilitating

coordination, operational support, and information sharing at EU level.

(g) How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local

authorities differ across the EU?

The views and preferred approaches of national, regional, and local authorities differ across

the EU due to variations in legal traditions, administrative structures, prosecutorial systems,

and operational capacities. Some Member States favour deeper EU-level integration and

stronger coordination mechanisms, while others prioritise maintaining national procedural

autonomy. Regional and local prosecutorial authorities may also differ in their operational

needs and levels of experience with cross-border cooperation. An EU-level framework

through Eurojust provides a common platform capable of reconciling these differences while

ensuring coherent and effective judicial cooperation throughout the Union.

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed

action be better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action

(EU added value)?

By pooling expertise and information, supporting Joint Investigation Teams, avoiding

duplication and assisting less-resourced Member States, Eurojust creates economies of scale

and strengthens the fight against serious transnational crime. Its work also supports the

internal market by increasing legal certainty, reducing criminal loopholes across borders, and

reinforcing trust for citizens and businesses operating within the EU. At the same time,

Eurojust does not replace national authorities nor reduces Member States’ competences but

rather complements their work within national legal frameworks. The planned reform is also

expected to improve legal clarity, particularly regarding governance, cooperation with

partners, and data protection rules.

(a) Are there clear benefits from EU level action?

5

The EU level action regarding the judicial cooperation between competent national

authorities provides clear benefits.

Eurojust represents a genuine EU-level added value: it creates efficiencies, pooling resources,

information and expertise; enables and facilitates coherent, coordinated, cross-border action

against serious crime; fosters mutual trust and legal cooperation; and by doing so, strengthens

the rule-of-law foundations and trust that underpin the internal market and citizens’ mobility.

Without Eurojust (or a similar EU-level mechanism), national efforts alone, even if bilateral

cooperation exists and that European MLA tools (EAW, EIO, etc.) are very efficient, would

struggle to respond effectively to the scale, complexity and transnational nature of serious

organised crime, terrorism, human trafficking, money-laundering, cybercrime, etc. The

speed, coordination, and institutional capacity that Eurojust provides are difficult to replicate

through bilateral cooperation alone, especially across many Member States.

(b) Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level

(larger benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be

improved?

There are clear economies of scale and efficiency gains from having an executive agency like

Eurojust at EU level rather than relying solely on individual national systems or bilateral

cooperation. Eurojust clearly contributes to the following actions:

• Pooling information, expertise and resources by bringing together national

practitioners from all Member States in one institution. Eurojust concentrates know-

how, specialised skills and experience that no single national authority would have at

scale. This reduces duplication and ensures that cross-border cases benefit from

expert coordination and institutional memory rather than ad-hoc bilateral attempts.

• Faster and more efficient coordination for transnational crime, time and coordination

matter. Eurojust’s structure allows rapid convening of coordination meetings, setting

up JITs, steering “coordination centres” for cross-border operations, and facilitating

swift execution of EAWs, EIOs or freezing orders.

• Avoiding duplication and conflicting investigations. When several Member States

would independently investigate overlapping cross-border crimes, Eurojust can help

avoid multiple, overlapping, inefficient investigations which would waste public

resources. Instead, it helps coordinate a single, coherent cross-border investigation or

prosecution.

• Support for states with fewer resources. Indeed, for Member States with limited

capacity, handling complex transnational crime can be resource-intensive: Eurojust

provides operational, technical and financial support levelling the playing field and

ensuring that all states, large or small, can effectively participate in cross-border crime

prosecution.

In addition, Eurojust contributes to the functioning of the internal market and EU as a whole.

By strengthening trust, ensuring consistent enforcement of criminal law, and reducing the

risk of cross-border criminal exploitation of jurisdictional fragmentation, Eurojust helps

underpin the internal market and general rule-of-law foundations that economic integration

depends on. Eurojust plays a non negligeable role in the following actions:

• The reduction of “safe havens” for criminals. Serious and cross-border crimes can

undermine trust in the internal market, distort competition, damage legitimate

6

businesses, and discourage cross-border economic activity. By enabling efficient

cross-border prosecution, Eurojust helps close loopholes that criminals could exploit

across borders. This reinforces a level playing field for businesses across the EU.

• The building of confidence for individuals and businesses to operate across borders.

A predictable, efficient and fair criminal-justice cooperation system strengthens trust

for citizens, in terms of rights protection, for suspects and victims alike, but also for

businesses and cross-border economic actors (it fosters cross-border trade and

investment). This supports the deeper integration of the internal market.

• The facilitation of judicial cooperation for crimes affecting EU financial interests or

cross-border economic crime. Some of the crimes Eurojust handles (e.g., money-

laundering, fraud, drug trafficking, cybercrime) often have direct or indirect

economic consequences (asset seizures, disrupted supply chains, reputational

damage). Efficient cross-border prosecution helps preserve the integrity of the market

and protect citizens/businesses from being victims.

• The facilitation of movement and social/economic integration. As noted in EU

strategy on criminal justice, when judiciaries across Member States trust each other

and share minimal common standards, “people are more likely to use their right to

live, work or study in another EU country.” In that sense, a strong EU-level judicial

cooperation mechanism supports the broader internal market not only in economic

trade but also mobility and labour market integration.

(c) What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more

homogenous policy approach?

The Eurojust’s action does not replace different national authorities. It does not substitute the

work of national judicial authorities: it enhances this work. EU-level action and the services

provided by Eurojust support and reinforce the work of national judicial authorities (public

prosecutors offices and, depending on national systems, investigation judges), helping them

to prosecute cross-border crimes and to conduct related criminal proceedings, such as

proceedings for asset recovery, more effectively.

(d) Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member

States and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting

at national, regional and local levels)?

There is no loss of competence of the Member States or local authorities: they will retain all

their powers, as Eurojust will support their actions within the framework of national

procedures. Furthermore, each Member State will be represented twice within the agency: at

the operational level through the national desks, and at the managerial level through the

Management Board.

(e) Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation?

One of the objectives of the revision is precisely to clarify the agency’s governance system,

and in particular the relationships between its decision-making bodies. Another focus of the

reform is to improve relations between the agency and its European and other partners, which

will also promote legal certainty. The legal framework applicable to data protection and

processing will also be clarified.

3. Proportionality: How the EU should act

7

3.1 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying

the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the

proportionality of the proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the

compliance of the proposal with the principle of proportionality?

The assessment of measures and options followed a four-step process (construct baseline,

compile wide range of alternative policy options, identify most viable, describe key aspects

of retained ones). The choice of the preferred option is compliant with the principle of

proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TEU. In this regard, the EU action will not exceed

what is necessary to achieve legitimate interests.

The rationale has been developed according to the degree of intensity of the measure and by

topic (specific objective and area of intervention). The assessment of the measures and policy

options is based on a mixed methods approach in which their effectiveness, efficiency and

coherence are graded using a scoring system that reflects the available data and its

acknowledged limitations. The measures selected for further analysis in the impact

assessment were the most proportionate and feasible (legally and politically).

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any

impact assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the

proposed action an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?

The initiative is justified at Union level because Member States cannot effectively address

the growing complexity of serious cross-border crime on their own, making coordinated EU

action through Eurojust indispensable. In line with Article 85 TFEU, a regulation is

considered the most appropriate and coherent legal instrument to strengthen Eurojust’s

structure, governance, operational tasks, and cooperation mechanisms, since non-legislative

measures would not adequately resolve the identified shortcomings. While the regulation

leaves limited room for national implementation, it still allows flexibility for Member States

in areas such as the allocation of powers to National Members and the granting of additional

competences under national law. Although the reform entails additional financial and

administrative costs, these are viewed as proportionate and necessary given Eurojust’s

expanding responsibilities, expected efficiency gains, and the broader objective of reducing

the significant economic and social costs of crime across the EU.

(a) Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve

satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union can do better?

Yes. The scale and effects of cross-border crime investigations make Union-level

coordination indispensable. As the EU agency supporting and improving the coordination

and cooperation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities, Eurojust is a

strong expression of this. There is a need for EU action to step up the support to Member

States in fighting serious and cross-border crime to keep pace with these threats. Indeed,

Member States alone would not be able to effectively tackle the new operational issues and

criminal threats identified in the evaluation study and the impact assessment.

(b) Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the

objectives pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive,

recommendation, or alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)?

8

The choice of the instrument is guided by the legal basis, Article 85 TFEU stating that the

European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with

the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine Eurojust's structure, operation, field of

action and tasks.

(c) Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while

achieving satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European

action to minimum standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?)

One option discarded at an early stage was to adopt only non-legislative measures to address

the identified problems. The effects of an absence of legislative measures have been

considered in the baseline scenario described in the impact assessment. A legislative initiative

(a regulation) is the only means to address the problems identified in the functioning and the

governance of Eurojust as for the need to improve the tasks and operational competences of

the agency.

(d) Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national

governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these

costs commensurate with the objective to be achieved?

Eurojust is a decentralised agency mainly financed by the EU budget. Possibilities for internal

redeployment within Eurojust to cover part of the new tasks have been seriously explored

and pursued to the extent feasible.

• The reform is expected to generate certain efficiency gains. In particular, relieving

National Members from administrative burden and refocusing them on operational

casework should allow National Desks to devote more resources to cases and requests

from Member States, rather than supporting lengthy administrative discussions within

the College.

• Enhanced cooperation with partners is also expected to reduce the number of FTEs

currently devoted to follow-up activities linked to information exchange, thereby

freeing additional operational capacity.

• Nevertheless, additional resources are required to fulfil the Agency’s new tasks. The

figures currently reflected in the draft Impact Assessment are already net of the

estimated efficiency gains. These numbers are proportionate and correspond to the

operational needs of the reformed agency.

• This should also be seen against the background of the current resource situation at

Eurojust, where resources are already significantly stretched and several

reprioritisation exercises have taken place in recent years. Eurojust has repeatedly

indicated that, without reinforcements, it may soon be required to scale back certain

core activities.

The preferred option is expected to enhance the ability of national judicial authorities to

successfully prosecute cross-border organised crime, including large criminal enterprises,

particularly those with a third country dimension. This improvement acts as a deterrent to

future criminal activity, increases legal certainty, and reduces crime levels, thus

ultimately benefiting citizens and businesses alike. Given the size of the cost of crime in the

EU (approximately EUR 200 billion per annum), even a small contribution from the Agency

to the reduction of crime is expected to be high in monetary terms. To illustrate this, should

9

the proposed improvements to Eurojust contribute to addressing a mere 0.05%, this would

result overall in a EUR 100 million reduction to the cost of crime.

(e) While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual

Member States been taken into account?

The legislative tool will be a regulation, without margin for manoeuvre concerning its

implementation (there is no transposition). Nevertheless, the implementation of some

provisions will leave some flexibility to Members States.

For instance, despite the reinforcement of the eligibility criteria for appointing College’s

National Members, if, under national law, the powers of National Members are conferred

upon another competent national authority, the National Member may request that authority

to issue or execute the measure concerned. In addition, Member States will have the

possibility to grant additional powers to National Members for the purpose of exercising their

tasks (in this hypothesis these Member States shall notify it the Commission and the College).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

4.5.2026

SEC(2026) 570

REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION

{COM(2026) 570}

{SWD(2026) 570-573}

Impact assessment / Revision of the Eurojust Regulation

________________________________

This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

[email protected]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD

Brussels, RSB

Opinion

Title: Impact assessment / Revision of the Eurojust Regulation

Overall opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS

(A) Policy context

The EU agency for criminal justice cooperation, Eurojust, was set up in 2002. Amidst

growing sophistication of transnational criminal networks and accelerating digitalisation

of illegal activities, an evaluation published in 2025 identified structural and

organisational constraints affecting negatively the operational performance of the agency.

This impact assessment tries to address these issues and seeks to identify the way forward

towards stronger coordination and cooperation between national investigating and

prosecuting authorities to combat serious cross-border crime in the EU. The impact

assessment comes in parallel with related initiatives on Europol, Data Retention and the

Anti-Fraud Architecture (AFA) package (OLAF, EPPO and PIF).

(B) Key issues

The Board notes the additional information provided and commitments to make

changes to the report.

However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a

positive opinion with reservations because it expects the lead Service to rectify the

following aspects:

(1) The identification of the problems and their drivers is not sufficiently clear on

issues arising from legal obstacles despite recent amendments, and from

implementation problems.

(2) The specific and operational objectives, are not defined in a SMART manner to

allow measuring success through a comprehensive set of key performance

indicators.

(3) The impact of the initiative on fundamental rights (use of personal data) is not

sufficiently analysed.

2

(C) What to improve

(1) The report should better present the current situation of the agency and clarify

elements such as the prioritisation of simple versus complex files, nationally led cases

versus Eurojust ‘own’ cases and the involvement of external bodies and third

countries, to the extent possible and illustrated by examples/evidence. Concepts such

as what constitutes a ‘complex’ case should be explained in a clear way.

(2) The report should make better use of the 2025 evaluation, by including concrete

findings and examples in the analysis of the relevant problems and their drivers. The

problem definition should clarify the extent to which the current legislation is at the

origin of the problems and their drivers. It should better explain why the amendments

of the Eurojust Regulation since 2022 have not been sufficient for Eurojust to address

the challenges of a fast-evolving crime landscape. Issues related to governance and

organisational culture and why addressing them requires legislative changes rather

than management decisions should be better analysed.

(3) Specific and operational objectives should be reviewed to make them SMARTer. The

related key performance indicators should be adjusted accordingly, prioritising those

that can track the progress on achieving the objectives in a sufficiently reliable,

objective and proportionate manner, fully taking into account digital solutions.

(4) Certain measures, such as the ones expanding Eurojust’s competences to new or

emerging crimes, should be more clearly explained. The assessment of the policy

options should be enhanced, notably as regards the assessment on fundamental rights

of the impact of the measures leading to enhanced sharing of personal data. In this

respect, the report should provide a detailed analysis of the associated risks and

clearly explain the safeguards envisaged to mitigate them.

(5) The analysis of the coherence of the measures with recent or ongoing initiatives

related to EU bodies in the field of Justice and Home affairs as well as the EU

antifraud architecture, such as Europol, EPPO, OLAF, AMLA, etc. as well as in

relation to the EU external policies should be strengthened.

(6) Finally, efforts should be made to improve the accessibility of the report to non-

experts, while keeping it to a reasonable size.

Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author Service.

(D) Conclusion

The lead Service must revise the report and its executive summary in accordance

with the Board’s findings before launching the interservice consultation.

Full title Revision of the Eurojust Regulation

Reference number PLAN/2025/1408

Submitted to RSB on 1 April 2026

Date of RSB meeting 29 April 2026

Electronically signed on 04/05/2026 16:12 (UTC+02) in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 24.6.2026

SWD(2026) 570 final

PART 1/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and

repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727

{COM(2026) 570 final} - {SEC(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 571 final} -

{SWD(2026) 572 final} - {SWD(2026) 573 final}

1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ..................................... 1

1.1. Eurojust .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Legal context: the Eurojust Regulation ............................................................. 1

1.3. Political context ................................................................................................. 2

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 4

2.1. Suboptimal efficiency of Eurojust’s internal organisation and processes ......... 5

2.1.1. What is the problem? .......................................................................................... 5

2.1.2. What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................... 6

2.2. Limitations in Eurojust’s interaction with partners ........................................... 9

2.2.1. What is the problem? .......................................................................................... 9

2.2.2. What are the problem drivers? ......................................................................... 10

2.3. How likely are the problems to persist (in absence of external intervention)? 13

2.3.1. Internal structural and governance limitations ................................................. 14

2.3.2. External interaction and cooperation ................................................................ 15

3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 15

3.1. Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 15

3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 16

3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 16

4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ..................................................... 17

4.1. General objective ............................................................................................. 17

4.2. Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 17

5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .......................................... 18

5.1. What is the baseline from which the options are assessed? ............................ 19

5.2. Description of the policy options per specific objective ................................. 21

5.2.1. Specific Objective 1: Strengthen Eurojust’s Internal Functioning,

Governance and Operational Performance .............................................................. 22

5.2.1.1 Area of intervention A. Extending the scope of material competences to

face the new judicial landscape ............................................................................. 23

5.2.1.2 Area of intervention B. Harmonising Member State implementation of

the EJR, including on allocation of cases .............................................................. 24

5.2.1.3 Area of intervention C. Establishing a streamlined, coherent and role-

clear governance system that accelerates decision-making ................................... 25

5.2.2. Specific Objective 2: Achieve optimal operational integration with

Member States, EU partners and third countries ..................................................... 27

5.2.2.1 Area of intervention D. Fostering and strengthening structured

operational cooperation with Europol ................................................................... 28

5.2.2.2 Area of intervention E. Promoting fully developed cooperation with the

EPPO ............................................................................................................... 30

5.2.2.3 Area of intervention F. Consolidating cooperation with third countries

and international organisations .............................................................................. 31

5.3. Measures discarded at an early stage ............................................................... 32

6. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................ 34

6.1. Specific Objective 1 ........................................................................................ 34

6.2. Specific Objective 2 ........................................................................................ 39

7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .................................................................. 44

8. PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................................................. 45

8.1. Presentation of the cumulative impact of the preferred option ....................... 46

8.2. Impact of the preferred option ......................................................................... 48

8.2.1. Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 48

8.2.2. Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 49

8.2.3. Coherence ......................................................................................................... 51

8.2.4. Impacts on Fundamental Rights ....................................................................... 53

8.3. REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) and ‘one in, one out’ approach

....................................................................................................................... 54

9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ....... 55

9.1. Measurable indicators of success and proposed targets ........................................ 55

9.2. Operational objectives and related indicators proposed ........................................ 56

Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition

AD Administrative Director

AFA Anti-fraud Architecture

AMLA Anti-Money Laundering Agency

ARO Asset Recovery Office

CAAR Consolidated Annual Activity Report

CATS Informal Coordinating Committee in the area of police and judicial

cooperation in criminal matters

CC Coordination Centres

CEPOL European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training

CF Consultative Forum of Prosecutors General and Directors of Public

Prosecutions

CICED Core International Crimes Evidence Database

CM Coordination Meeting

CMS Case Management System

CTR European Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register

DG HOME Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs

DG JUST Directorate General for Justice and Consumers

DPR Data Protection Rules

EAW European Arrest Warrant

ECRIS European Criminal Records Information System

ECRIS-TCN European Criminal Records Information System – Third Country

Nationals

EDPS European Data Protection Supervisor

EJN European Judicial Network

EJR Eurojust Regulation

EIO European Investigation Order

EMPACT European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats

ENCS Eurojust National Coordination Systems

EPPO European Public Prosecutor’s Office

EU European Union

EUCA European Union Customs Authority

EUDPR EU Data Protection Regulation

Eurojust European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation

Europol European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

eu-LISA European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale

IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

EB Executive Board

FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

FRONTEX European Border and Coast Guard Agency

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

GBV Gender-Based Violence

IBOA EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies

ICF Internal Control Framework

ICPA International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression

against Ukraine

JHA Justice and Home Affairs

JIT Joint Investigation Team

JOP Joint Operational Platform

JUDEX

JUstice Digital EXchange system, the constellation of decentralised IT

systems established by various EU legal instruments in civil, commercial,

and criminal matters

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LM Liaison Magistrate

LP Liaison Prosecutor

MAS Multi-Annual Strategy

MB Management Board

MFF Multiannual Financial Framework (EU financial programming)

MLA Mutual Legal Assistance

MoJ Ministry of Justice

NM National Member

OLAF European Anti-Fraud Office

PIF

Protection of the European Union’s financial interests. In EU criminal law,

it refers to offences that harm the EU budget, such as fraud, corruption, or

related financial crime.

RACER Relevant, Accepted, Credible, Easy to monitor and Robust.

SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound

SOCTA Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment

TEU Treaty on European Union

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

VURM Violation of Union Restrictive Measures

1

1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT

1.1. Eurojust

Eurojust is the EU agency for criminal justice cooperation,supporting national

authorities in combating serious cross-border crime by strengthening coordination between

national authorities. As criminal networks increasingly operate across borders, national

authorities rely on Eurojust to facilitate parallel investigations across multiple Member

States, resolve conflicts of jurisdiction, coordinate prosecutorial strategies and support the

gathering and exchange of evidence.

Originally proposed in the Tampere Programme of 1999,1 Eurojust was formally

established in 2002 as an intergovernmental body under the Third Pillar on Police and

Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.2 The Treaty of Lisbon3 transformed it into an

EU agency within the ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ in the TFEU, culminating

in Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice

Cooperation (EJR), which modernised its governance and aligned it with post-Lisbon EU

agency structures. This Regulation has since been amended three times in a targeted

manner to address pressing operational needs: Regulation (EU) 2022/838,created the

Core International Crimes Evidence Database (CICED) following Russia’s full-scale

war of aggression against Ukraine; Regulation (EU) 2023/2131, strengthened

information-sharing in terrorism cases; and Regulation (EU) 2025/2082, extended the

timeframe for the establishment of the new Eurojust Case Management System (CMS).4

Today, Eurojust is an indispensable operational and strategic hub for judicial

cooperation, directly supporting the fight against cross-border criminal cases.

1.2. Legal context: the Eurojust Regulation

Eurojust’s mandate, structure, and operational framework are governed by the EJR, which

establishes it as a decentralised EU agency with legal personality. The Regulation defines

the mission of Eurojust as supporting and strengthening coordination and cooperation

between national investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious

crime, particularly in cases affecting multiple Member States, based on information

supplied by Member States’ authorities, Europol, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

Eurojust’s material competence extends to serious forms of crime listed in Annex I of

the EJR, and related offences. While Eurojust itself does not exercise prosecutorial powers,

the EJR equips it with coordination tools that go beyond informal facilitation. These

include the power to request national authorities to initiate investigations, to recommend

jurisdictional leadership, and to issue opinions to resolve disputes.

Operational tasks are performed by National Members (NMs) – judicial representatives

from each Member State – who may act in individual capacity or collectively as the

College. This ensures that all actions undertaken remain grounded in national law, while

enabling coordination among Member States. Strategic planning and management are, as

a rule, entrusted to the Executive Board (EB) and Administrative Director (AD).

1 Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency conclusions, para 46. 2 2002/187/JHA: Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against

serious crime. 3 Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed

13 December 2007. 4 Regulation (EU) 2025/2082.

2

Eurojust’s operational model relies on multilateral judicial coordination, primarily through

case management, Joint Investigation Teams (JITs), and strategic platforms like the

Counter-Terrorism Register.

Recent years have seen a shift toward crisis-driven coordination, exemplified by Eurojust’s

pivotal role in the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression

(ICPA). Established under the CICED framework, ICPA facilitates evidence-sharing for

war crimes linked to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, requiring close collaboration with the

ICC, Europol’s War Crimes Task Force, and national war crimes units. This expansion

underscores Eurojust’s evolving mandate in international criminal justice, with resource

demands outpacing current capacities.

The Regulation imposes on Member States specific information-sharing obligations,

coupled with data protection rules (DPR) governing the transfer of data. It also provides

the legal basis for Eurojust’s CMS.

Finally, it establishes a framework for cooperation with judicial networks – notably the

European Judicial Network (EJN) – as well as Europol and the EPPO, other EU

institutions, bodies, offices and agencies (IBOAs), third countries, and international

organisations.

Internal functioning of Eurojust

The main governance organs of Eurojust are the Eurojust’s College, the Executive Board (EB) and the

Administrative Director (AD). The College is the body in charge of operational and operational-related

decisions; it is chaired by the President, who is a National Member elected by their peers for a four-year term

and is assisted by two Vice-Presidents. When exercising its management functions, the College also includes

a representative of the European Commission. The College adopts the Agency’s budget, Rules of Procedure,

as well as policy papers and guidelines related to the operational work of Eurojust. There is one National

Member per Member State. National Members are responsible for overseeing the operational work of their

respective National Desks. They are supported by a deputy and assistant(s). While the National Members are

organs of Eurojust, they are appointed and continue to be employed by their respective Member States. The

introduction of the EB by the Eurojust Regulation aimed at reducing the administrative burden on the

College. The Board consists of Eurojust’s President, its two Vice-Presidents, a representative of the

European Commission, and two other College Members designated on a two-year rotation system. As such,

membership of the Board is not conditional on any managerial skill or experience. The EB is not involved

in the operational functions of Eurojust. Instead, it focuses on ensuring the Agency’s proper functioning.

Activities of the Board include reviewing key programming and planning documents (e.g. the draft annual

budget), assisting and advising the AD on the implementation of College decisions, and adopting the anti-

fraud strategy and financial rules. The administration of Eurojust is headed by the AD, who is appointed by

the College. The AD is responsible for the day-to-day administration of Eurojust, in line with the Eurojust

Regulation, College decisions, and Eurojust programming documents, etc. The administration (Eurojust

staff) is further divided into two main departments, the Operations Department and the Resources

Department.

1.3. Political context

The EU’s internal security landscape is evolving rapidly, shaped by increasingly complex

criminal ecosystems, a steady expansion of cross-border threats,andongoing

geopolitical instability. Criminal networks operate seamlessly across borders, exploiting

jurisdictional fragmentation and technical innovation to commit illegal activities and evade

detection. While Europe’s institutional systems are largely recognised as effective and

resilient, there are regional variations.5 National judicial and law enforcement systems are

5 Global Organized Crime Index 2025, Crime at a crossroads, Europe, p. 2.

3

under unprecedented strain, intensifying the operational demand for coordinated support

at EU level.

The recent Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA)6 underlines this

shift, depicting a highly interconnected, technology-driven criminal ecosystem that

systematically outpaces national law enforcement and judicial responses.

In response, the EU has strengthened its strategic framework for internal security. The

ProtectEU Strategy7 explicitly prioritises judicial cooperation, recognising that

operational intelligence must translate into effective prosecutions. It highlights the need to

assess and strengthen Eurojust’s mandate in 2026, underscoring the Agency’s central

role in coordinating cross-border prosecutions, enabling information exchange between

judicial authorities, and ensuring coherent prosecution at EU level and beyond. This is

echoed in the EU Roadmap to fight Drug Trafficking and Organised Crime and the

EU Drugs Strategy and EU Action Plan against drug trafficking8.Given that

successful prosecutions hinge on swift mutual legal assistance and parallel investigations,

Eurojust’s role as the EU’s criminal justice hub has never been more critical.

A clear trend has emerged: the line between domestic and cross-border crime is

blurring, and effectiveness of national judicial action now depends on robust EU-level

support. Recent reforms – such as the E-evidence framework,9 the Anti-Money

Laundering package,10and the interoperability of EU information systems11 – are

transforming data-sharing practices of national authorities, making coordination even more

essential.

Member States increasingly depend on Eurojust’s support, using Joint Investigation

Teams (JITs)12, Coordination Meetings (CMs)and Coordination Centres (CC) to

manage parallel investigations, prevent jurisdictional conflicts, and secure admissible

evidence.13 Judicial cooperation needs have expanded in both volume and complexity,

particularly in cyber-enabled crime, financial crime, terrorism, and organised crime cases.

Eurojust must be ready to rise to these challenges.

The 2025 evaluation of Eurojust,14carried out pursuant to Article 69 of the EJR, found

that while the Agency plays a pivotal role in supporting cross-border investigations, it

faces structural and organisational constraints which ultimately affect its operational

performance.

Therefore, the EU needs a more effective, more efficient, and better-equipped Eurojust

to ensure cross-border crimes are prosecuted effectively and justice systems can respond

swiftly to evolving threats.

In light of this, the High-Level Forum on the Future of EU Criminal Justice called for

a more cohesive criminal justice architecture, recognising Eurojust’s decisive role in

6 EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2025 (EU-SOCTA). 7 COM(2025) 148 final (01.04.2025). 8 COM(2023) 641 final (18.10.2023), COM(2025) 743 final (04.12.2025), COM(2025) 744 final (04.12.2025). 9 Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 and Directive (EU) 2023/1544. 10 Regulations (EU) 2023/1113, 2024/1620, 2024/1624, Directives (EU) 2024/1640, 2024/1654. 11 Regulation (EU) 2019/818, Regulation (EU) 2019/817. 12 As defined under Article 1 of the Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA A Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is set

up for a specific purpose and limited duration, based on an agreement between two or more EU Member States (and

possibly third parties), to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the states involved. Since 2024, around 300

JITs are supported by Eurojust every year. 13 Demand for CMs grew by 50% between 2019 and 2024, applications for JIT financial support rose by 17% over the

same period, Support study, pp. 19-20. 14 SWD(2025) 182 final (02.7.2025).

4

coordinating cross-border investigations, both within the EU and with third countries.15

Consequently, the Commission work programme 2026 has prioritised revising

Eurojust’s legal framework to protect democracy, upholding EU values.16

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

The evaluation found that Eurojust is highly effective in fulfilling its mandate to support

and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national authorities in the field of

criminal justice.17 However, improvements are needed, particularly in efficiency and

cooperation with EU partners and third countries18 – issues that were not addressed by

previous amendments19 of the EJR. Optimising internal processes and interactions with

the broader criminal justice ecosystem would unlock its full potential in the fight

against serious and organised cross-border crime.

Two sets of problems have been identified: one relating to the internal dimension,

stemming from limitations in the organisational structure and processes; and one relating

to the external dimension, concerning challenges in coordination with partners.

The evaluation also highlighted the slow pace of Eurojust’s digitalisation and the issues

arising from its outdated IT infrastructures, particularly its CMS, hindering

interoperability, data exchange and analysis and effective workflows. This ultimately

affects Eurojust’s capacity to manage increasing data volumes and address digitally

enabled crime.20 However, as a new CMS and other digital tools are already in

development, this problem is not explored further in this impact assessment.21

Table 1: Problem tree

15 Report of the High Level-Forum on the Future of EU Criminal Justice, February-December 2025 (HLF report). 16 COM(2025) 870 final (21.10.2025), Annex I, No. 31. 17 Eurojust Evaluation, p. 43. 18 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 47-49. 19 Changes to the EJR since 2022 were targeted amendments (Counter Terrorism Register, CICED and new CMS) adding

competences, in particular in reaction to crisis situations. These amendments did not constitute a comprehensive reform

of the Agency that would address broader structural deficiencies. 20 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 18, 33. 21 COM/2025/143 final.

5

2.1. Suboptimal efficiency of Eurojust’s internal organisation and processes

2.1.1. What is the problem?

Eurojust’s ability to maximise its added value in supporting cross-border criminal cases is

compromised by an insufficient focus on its core operational activities.22

While demand for its services grows across Member States,23 it still struggles to

systematically filter out lower-complexity cases, such as routine information exchange or

bilateral mutual legal assistance requests, which could be handled more efficiently through

bilateral cooperation or the EJN. Instead, resources are diverted from complex cases,24

which involve serious cross-border crime requiring active coordinationand a common

strategy among multiple jurisdictions. These are the cases where Eurojust’s involvement

generates the greatest added value, particularly when multiple legal frameworks and

judicial authorities, or third countries are involved.25

Example EncroChat26: Eurojust’s strategic impact is exemplified in the dismantling of EncroChat, an

encrypted phone network widely used by organised crime groups across Europe and beyond. Initiated in

2017 by French authorities, followed by a case opening at Eurojust in 2019 and escalated into a JIT in 2020

with the Netherlands under Eurojust’s coordination, the operation exemplifies how the Agency optimises

resources for high-stakes cases. By facilitating nine CMs, resolving jurisdictional conflicts, and processing

nearly 170 European Investigation Orders (EIOs), Eurojust enabled the interception of millions of encrypted

messages, leading to 6,558 arrests globally and the seizure of EUR 900 million in criminal assets. The case

also demonstrated Eurojust’s role in scaling cooperation: what began as a bilateral effort expanded to 13

countries, triggering spin-off investigations into drug trafficking, money laundering, and violent crime.

Crucially, Eurojust’s involvement ensured that admissible evidence was shared efficiently across

jurisdictions, avoiding duplication and legal fragmentation. This case shows how Eurojust’s intervention on

complex, multi-jurisdictional threats delivers transformative results in combating organised crime.

In recent years, Eurojust’s mandate has expanded into new and resource-intensive areas,

namely international crimes and terrorism.27 Despite allocations of some additional budget

and staff to account for the new tasks,28 a level of tension is noted between workload and

staff availability, leading to reduced support capacity and delays in responding to Member

States.29 Some resource dispersion results from Eurojust’s unstructured participation in

policy and strategic cycles.30 While the Agency is uniquely positioned to contribute to

policy development in the area of criminal justice and judicial cooperation, its role in this

field remains largely based on ad hoc requests, resulting in both limited involvement and

challenges in determining the appropriate level of resources to be allocated to such work.31

22Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 25, 30-31; Support study, p. 18.23 The number of registered cases grew by 66% between 2019 and 2024, at an average growth rate of 11%. The projected

annual growth in workload for the period 2026-2028 is 8%. Support study, pp. 18-19.24 Core characteristics of a complex case are for example: multilateral investigations (several Member States and/or third

countries) linked to organised crime, parallel proceedings and prosecutions with risks of jurisdictional conflicts, several

legal frameworks and judicial authorities involved, operations demanding coordination tools or synchronised actions

(e.g., JITs, simultaneous arrests, or searches), operational urgency or strategic importance. 25Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 18-20, 25-27.26 https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/ar2020/7-casework-crime-type/72-encrochat-dismantling-encrypted-network-used-

criminal-groups; https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/news/dismantling-encrypted-criminal-encrochat-communications-6-

500-arrests-900-eur-seized; https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/fr/document/encrochat-investigation-france. 27 Amending Regulations (EU) 2022/838 (establishing the Core International Crimes Evidence Database and supporting

the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression) and 2023/2131 (establishing the Counter

Terrorism Register). 28Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 23-24, 27-28.29Support study, p. 21.30Support study, p. 22.31 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 14, 37; Support study, p. 21.

6

These constraints have shaped an operational model in which Eurojust primarily responds

to Member States’ requests rather than acting proactively. This limits the use of its own-

initiative powers and reduces its capacity to identify and act on cross-border criminal

developments, leaving its potential to contribute to crime detection underexploited.32

Part of the problem lies in Eurojust’s partially outdated toolset. Its competences remain

focused on the coordination of investigations and prosecutions, with no clearly defined

mandate in related areas of growing importance, such as asset freezing, the processing of

e-evidence, victim support and analysis of judicial data. Though Eurojust already engages

in these activities at the request of Member States, it does so in an unstructured manner,

without a clear legal basis and defined scope.33

Finaly, the Agency’s governance, decision-making and management do not consistently

support timely and effective steering. Despite the change of legal framework, the Agency’s

internal structures and working practices have not fully evolved to operate as an EU

decentralised agency.34 Decisions that could be taken at managerial or administrative level

are often escalated to collective governance bodies, increasing procedural burden,

potentially delaying strategic direction and operational follow-through. Administrative

work tends to absorb a significant share of the attention of NMs and their desks, diverting

time and focus from casework.35

2.1.2. What are the problem drivers?

Problem driver #1 relates to limitations in Eurojust’s case selection and prioritisation

model. This driver stems primarily from implementation challenges, though the absence

of a legal definition of a “Eurojust case” which adds procedural ambiguity. Beyond limited

instances of own-initiative action, Eurojust’s operational work is driven by Member States’

demand, as it is national authorities that refer cases and provide information.36

When dealing with incoming requests, Eurojust does not systematically apply clear criteria

to select, redirect, or prioritise cases. One reason appears to be the lack of a common

definition of a “Eurojust case”,37 leading to inconsistent approaches to case handling. In

addition, NMs may prioritise certain referrals over others based less on objective or

strategic considerations and more on thematic preferences, interests of the Member State

they represent, or established relationships with their respective national authorities.38 In

2023, an estimated 82% of Eurojust’s new case work was made up of bilateral and low-

complexity cases.39 In this context, high levels of ambition, combined with inconsistent

prioritisation, can create the perception that additional resources are the primary solution

to workload pressure, rather than a change in operational practices,40

A similar definitional gap affects ‘own-initiative’ cases as mentioned in Article 2(3) EJR.41

Coupled with the high number of referrals, this restricts the Agency’s ability to act

proactively.

32Support study, pp. 17-18.33Support study, p. 19.34Support study, p. 20.35Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 30-34. Support study, pp. 22-25.36Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 18-20, 26-27; Support study, pp. 18, 27.37 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 41-42. 38Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 30-31, 36. Support study, p. 27.39 Support study p. 18. 40Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 33-35. The support study suggests that by streamlining governance structures, Eurojust has

the potential to deliver greater impact with the same or even reduced level of resources, Support study, p. 24.41Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 20, 27; Support study, pp. 19-20.

7

Problem driver #2 relates to Eurojust’s partially outdated competences and associated

toolset.

This driver arises primarily from gaps in Eurojust’s formal mandate and competences.

As a hub connecting criminal justice authorities, Eurojust is well placed to support national

authorities in investigative activities of growing relevance, such as asset freezing – by

coordinating Asset Recovery Offices (AROs) and judicial authorities when proceeds of

crime are identified – and the issuance and execution of e-evidence orders. However,

Eurojust lacks an explicit mandate in these areas, resulting in unstructured activities carried

out at the request of national authorities, leaving much potential untapped.42

The lack of clearly defined competences also affects Eurojust’s analytical work, for which

a specific mandate has so far been granted only in relation to international crimes and

terrorism (for the data stored in the CICED and CTR). The positive experience with these

instruments suggests that such analytical functions could bring added value also in other

highly complex areas of crime.43

Moreover, emerging areas of criminalisation – such as violations of the Union’s restrictive

measures and cybercrime– currently fall outside Eurojust’s competence, meaning that the

Agency can only be involved upon specific request from national authorities, thereby

limiting its proactivity and strategic involvement.

Finally, despite its recognised value,44 no institutionalised mechanisms are in place to

translate Eurojust‘s operational expertise into reusable knowledge for EU policy

development in the area of criminal justice and judicial cooperation.45

Problem driver #3 concerns differences in EJR implementation across Member

States.

This driver stems from a mix of legal and practical problems, rooted in the fragmented

implementation of the EJR, divergent national legal frameworks governing NMs, and

inconsistent operational practices in case referrals and information sharing.

When appointed as NMs, the status and powers of the designated officials remain governed

by national law. While the implementation of the EJR has led to some harmonisation of

NMs’ judicial powers,46 differences persist, meaning that NMs from different Member

States may be empowered to carry out acts that others are precluded from performing.47

Under the current framework, Member States may appoint a prosecutor, a judge, or a

representative of a judicial authority as NM48 – a choice which affects the scope of powers

and the handling of cases. This is particularly evident in the issuance of judicial

instruments: some may be issued by a prosecutor, others require an independent judge,

while none can be issued by a representative who does not hold the status of an active

member of the judiciary.

42Interviews. Practitioners highlight how Eurojust could speed up asset freezing.43 Interviews. Practitioners using CICED value the analytical reports prepared by Eurojust at their request. 44 HLF report, p. 24. 45Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 14, 37; Support study, pp. 21-22.46 Evaluation study, p. 85. 47Eurojust Evaluation, p. 12; Support study, p. 26.48 Article 7(4) of the Eurojust Regulation. In some national systems, the appointed NM no longer retains judicial status

and assumes a role comparable to a civil servant within the MoJ.

8

Another consequence of differing practices and legal systems is that NMs have varying

levels of expertise which affects how administrative tasks are performed.49

These discrepancies lead to an uneven distribution of added value from the Agency’s

services across Member States, with some benefiting more than others.

Inconsistencies also affect the referral practices of Member States, exacerbating problem

driver #1. National authorities do not always apply appropriate criteria to distinguish

between lower-complexity cases, to be referred to the EJN, and more complex cases

requiring Eurojust’s involvement. In some instances, national authorities resort to Eurojust

as a “fast track” helpdesk for convenience rather than based on objective needs; in others,

they may favour bilateral cooperation or EJN channels, underusing Eurojust. Even the

Eurojust National Coordination System (ENCS) – the national hub responsible for

coordination between Eurojust and Member States – may lack sufficient authority to

effectively enforce such filtering.50

Finally, information sharing obligations are applied inconsistently. Member States lack a

shared understanding of what constitutes serious cross-border crime requiring Eurojust

involvement, leading to selective reporting. This reduces the completeness and timeliness

of the information shared, thereby limiting the Agency’s ability to gain an overview of

cross-border crime and to intervene proactively.51

Problem driver #4 concerns unclear separation between operational and

administrative responsibilities.

This driver stems from a mix of legal ambiguity and implementation challenges, primarily

arising from divergent interpretations of the EJR.

Interpretations of “operational” and “administrative” matters under the EJR diverge, with

Eurojust’s reading not fully aligning with the Commission’s institutional position.52 By

broadly defining “operational” matters, the College has effectively retained control over a

number of administrative decisions, sidelining the EB, which now functions largely as a

preparatory body for College meetings. This is partly due to reluctance from NMs to

delegate administrative authority, fearing it may compromise operational autonomy or

prosecutorial independence.53

The blurring of operational and administrative roles contributes to lengthy decision-

making processes and high administrative burden for NMs, who currently spend around

40-50% of their time on administrative work, at the expense of operational work.54

Problem driver #5 concerns the complex governance structure and legacy

organisational culture that adversely impact decision-making.

This driver stems primarily from implementation problems. However, the lack of clear

legal mandates for roles intensifies these challenges.

Eurojust’s governance is distributed across the College, the EB, College Working Groups

and the Administration, which can lead to misaligned priorities.

49Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 32-33. This is exacerbated by the existing rotation system for National Members’ membership

to the EB, which fails to take into account the specific expertise, interest, capacity and availability of the National

Members on duty. Support study, pp. 23, 26.50Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 12, 25-26; Support study, pp. 26-27.51Eurojust Evaluation, p. 27.52Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 25, 30-32, 38-39; Support study, p. 24.53 Support study, pp. 23-24.54Eurojust Evaluation, p. 30; Support study, p. 26.

9

The College informally shapes strategy, overlapping with responsibilities of the EB, while

the AD holds formal responsibility for planning and implementation.55 College Working

Groups play a role in shaping strategic planning through their influence rooted in legacy

practices. This undermines coherent governance and dilutes accountability.56 Despite

raising the issue and pushing for changes, the Commission, in its role as a member of the

EB and within the College, has not been able to effect reform.57

Governance inefficiencies are also rooted in a legacy culture. Established practices and

institutional culture preserve pre-EJR working methods, like consensus-based decision-

making, that favours inclusiveness over agility. This reflects an unresolved institutional

identity that oscillates between an intergovernmental coordination unit and a full EU

agency. The resulting ambiguity slows adaptation to new mandates or operational threats.58

2.2. Limitations in Eurojust’s interaction with partners

2.2.1. What is the problem?

Eurojust’s effectiveness as an EU criminal justice coordination hub is constrained in the

way it interacts with partner at the EU and international level.

While the mandates of EU agencies and bodies are designed to complement each other and

provide for close cooperation, their implementation in practice may give rise to procedural

complexity and duplication, affecting the EU’s response to serious and organised cross-

border crime.59 Stakeholders have drawn attention to the need to reinforce the judicial

dimension of cross-border cooperation by addressing gaps and enhancing coherence across

existing instruments.60

Eurojust’s cooperation with EU agencies and bodies is overall effective on a case-by-case

basis but lacks a fully structured or systematic approach. This can lead to withholding of

information, which may affect the identification of criminal activity at an early stage. 61

This is particularly relevant for Eurojust’s main partners in the criminal justice domain:

Europol and the EPPO. Cooperation with other IBOAs – notably OLAF – as well as the

EJN and other judicial networks, show scope for further improvement in terms of the

distribution of tasks and information exchange.62

Moreover, Eurojust’s capacity to support cooperation in cases with an extra-EU dimension,

while increasing, faces challenges. Cooperation with third countries is often irregular and

slow to operationalise, as existing arrangements may not be sufficiently robust or stable,

or are unevenly implemented.63 Following changes in the Treaty framework applicable to

international agreements, the EJR removed Eurojust’s power to conclude cooperation

agreements directly. Instead, in accordance with Article 218 TFEU, the Commission

55Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 30-33. Support study, p. 23.56Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 11-12, 30-33, 36. Support study, p. 23.57In the context of EB meetings, the Commission representative consistently pointed to agenda items which should not

have been brought before the EB, as well as others that should have been decided by the EB rather than being referred

to the College.58Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 30-33, 36.59 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 25, 28-29. 60 HLF report, p. 10. 61 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 28-29. 62 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 29-30. 63 Interviews, Annex II.

10

conducts negotiations, while the Council authorises signature and conclusion following the

consent of the European Parliament. This has made the process more time-consuming.64

In the absence of an international agreement, Eurojust has only limited and unstructured

means to engage with international partners. 65

2.2.2. What are the problem drivers?

Problem driver #6 relates to uncertainties in the application of the data protection

framework and constraints stemming from the data ownership principle.

This driver stems from a mix of legal and implementation problems.

Differences in the understanding of data protection requirements across Member States,

Eurojust and EU partners may result in delays and under-sharing of data for investigations.

Data Protection Officers apply varying levels of caution when assessing whether the

conditions for the transfer of operational data are met, with such assessments often proving

complex and burdensome.66

In addition, the flow of information is constrained by the data ownership principle. The

checks to ensure that Member States retain control over the use of the data they provide

may slow down exchanges between partner agencies, which must verify conditions or seek

the data owner’s consent before onward sharing relevant data.67

Regarding international cooperation, the absence of a data protection framework in third

countries and international organisations – or its misalignment with the EU requirements

– may delay or prevent the conclusion of international agreements enabling a structured

transfer of information.68

Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards – or based on derogations for specific situations

– may remain unused due to divergent interpretation of the provisions or over-

compliance.69

Problem driver #7 concerns the still-developing institutionalisation of cooperation

among partners at EU level.

This driver stems from legal and implementation problems, driven especially by the lack

of formalised frameworks for cooperation.

Eurojust cooperates with IBOAs within and beyond the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)

area, as well as with networks and other actors at EU level. However, the arrangements in

place vary widely, reflecting the degree to which cooperation is institutionalised within

each actor’s framework, ranging from ad hoc to more structured forms of cooperation. A

share of the engagement may rely on informal contacts or personal networks rather than

stable, predictable mechanisms.70

64 Agreements have been concluded with Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina; agreements with Lebanon and Algeria

are in the interinstitutional process; others are being negotiated. 65 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 23, 30. 66 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 17-18, 28-29. 67 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 28-29. 68 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 18, 30; Support study p. 32. 69 In the absence of adequacy decisions, data transfers must rely on these alternative legal bases. 70 Support study, pp. 30-32.

11

Where roles and responsibilities are not defined in detail in the legal framework, gaps may

arise in the identification of opportunities for mutual support, increasing coordination costs

and administrative burden for both Eurojust and its partners.71

Cooperation among EU agencies and bodies is structurally constrained by the existence of

separate data repositories between Eurojust, Europol, the EPPO, OLAF, AMLA, EUCA

and Frontex. While the separation of data storage reflects differing mandates and reinforces

data protection safeguards, it may slow down the timely identification of links between

cases handled by different actors, potentially generating missed opportunities for

uncovering criminal activity and supporting case-building.

The exchange of information currently takes place through a system of indirect mutual

access to databases – the so-called “hit/no-hit” system – which at present is codified and

exists only in bilateral relations between Eurojust, Europol, the EPPO and OLAF.72 The

functioning of this system remains cumbersome73. Even where a “hit” is identified, the

operational added value is often limited due to the time-consuming nature of the

procedures involved.74

While cooperation with Europol and the EPPO is central (and is therefore addressed under

separate problem drivers #8 and #9) cooperation with other actors remains comparatively

limited.

Cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF concerns a relatively small number of cases,

given the administrative nature of OLAF’s investigations, from which indications of

serious cross-border crime may occasionally arise.75 Nonetheless, there may be some

uncertainty as to whether Eurojust is expected to take on a coordinating role.

Engagement with agencies such as FRA and CEPOL remains largely ad hoc, often limited

to training or seminars and dependent on informal contacts rather than structured

workflows. Most partnerships are based on long-standing, non-binding memoranda of

understanding (e.g. with CEPOL, FRA and eu-LISA), which lack the legal weight and

operational detail of formal working arrangements.76

Finally, the distribution of work between Eurojust and judicial networks is not fully

codified nor consistent, making it less straightforward for practitioners to identify the

appropriate channel for their cooperation needs. As a result, referrals, requests for support

and information exchanges may not always follow the most streamlined approach.

Problem driver #8 concerns the insufficiently institutionalised cooperation between

Europol and Eurojust.

This driver stems from legal and implementation problems.

While the mandates of the two agencies are closely linked, ensuring a “continuum”

between law enforcement operations and judicial follow-up, criminal intelligence and

analytical datasets produced by Europol do not systematically feed into Eurojust’s

71 Eurojust Evaluation, pp. 29-30. 72 Articles 49-51 EJR. 73 One actor must submit a request to another regarding a case or suspect; the receiving party then manually verifies

whether relevant information is held in its database and communicates a “hit” or “no hit”. In the event of a hit, a further

request is required for disclosure, followed by additional manual follow-up. 74 Support study, p. 33. 75 Support study, pp. 29-30. 76 Renewing cooperation arrangements is a lengthy process that may face challenges. For instance, discussions between

Eurojust and Frontex on a new working arrangement were halted in 2022 due to data protection concerns raised by the

EDPS.

12

casework.77 This reduces opportunities for early alignment between investigative and

judicial action and the consistent translation of analytical insights into operational action,

particularly in priority domains such as organised crime.78

Such constraints are further compounded by the fact that the existing working arrangement

between the two agencies, concluded in 2010, may no longer fully reflect their current

mandates and evolving operational realities, limiting the scope for integrated

cooperation.79