VISITING EXPERT’S PAPEREUROJUST SUPPORT FOR THE TRANSMISSION, RECOGNITION AND
EXECUTION OF FREEZING ORDERS WITHIN THE EU AND TOWARDS
THIRD COUNTRIES
Boštjan Lamešič*

One of the most effective tools in the fight against crime is the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. As
complex criminal offences are increasingly transnational in nature, effective international cooperation in
tracing, freezing and confiscation in criminal proceedings is essential.
One of the common objectives of the European Union (EU) in this area is to ensure the most effective
mutual recognition and execution of freezing orders and confiscation orders within the territory of the EU
Member States, with rules applicable in each Member State. The EU is quite active in this area and has
adopted numerous applicable and/or harmonizing1 legal instruments2 such as:
1. Regulation 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders3 : applicablesince 19 December 2020 to all Member States except Denmark and Ireland.
2. Framework Decision 2003/577 on the execution in the EU of orders freezing property or evidence4 :still applicable only to Denmark and Ireland.
3. Framework Decision 2006/783 on confiscation orders5 : still applicable only to Denmark and Ireland.
4. Council Decision 2005/212 on the confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities andproperty.6 Harmonizing measure.
5. Council Decision 2007/845 on cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices.7
6. Directive 2014/42 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the
EU8 sets minimum rules for national freezing and confiscation regimes, and replaces certain provisions* Deputy National Member for Slovenia, Eurojust.
1Harmonisation in the area of EU criminal law only means the creation of minimum criminal rules and not their unification.
2
A Regulation is a binding legislative act and it must be applied in its entirety across the EU once it enters into force. A
Directive is a legislative act that sets out a goal that EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries
to devise their own laws on how to achieve these goals; therefore, it is not directly applicable in the Member States, but it
must first be transposed into national law before it is applicable in each Member State. A Decision is binding on those towhom it is addressed (e.g. an EU country or an individual company) and is directly applicable. Decisions are EU laws relatingto specific cases and are directed to individual or several Member States, companies or private individuals. They are bindingon those to whom they are directed.
   Framework Decisions, like Directives, when transposed into national law, serve to approximate legal systems, i.e. toharmonise a particular area of law so that it is regulated in practically the same way in the EU Member States that have
implemented it, which greatly facilitates international legal cooperation. In the latter case, it should also be ensured that theforeign Member State concerned has implemented the Framework Decision in question (Member States do not do this at thesame time) and in what way, as the principle of mutual recognition is the basis for judicial cooperation in criminal matters. If
the Member State concerned has not yet implemented the Framework Decision, other (conventional or bilateral) legal bases
may come into play.
3
https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/libcategories/EN/163/-1/-1/-1.
4
https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/libcategories/EN/24/-1/-1/-1.
5
https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/libcategories/EN/34/-1/-1/-1.
6
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32005F0212.
7
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007D0845.
8
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0042.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 117
of the Council Decision 2005/212.
7. Directive 2014/41 on the European Investigation Order:9 this is the applicable EU instrument for
obtaining financial and banking information for all Member States except Denmark and Ireland.
Regulation 2018/1805 (hereinafter: the Regulation) on the mutual recognition of freezing orders andconfiscation orders10 was adopted as previous legal instruments for the mutual recognition of freezing orders
and confiscation orders were not fully effective,11 as they were not implemented and applied uniformly in theMember States.12 This resulted in insufficient mutual recognition and ineffective international cooperation.
Therefore, it was necessary to improve the principle of mutual recognition and immediate execution offreezing orders and confiscation orders.
The Regulation has general and specific objectives.13 Its general objectives are:
1. to freeze and confiscate more assets derived from criminal activities in cross-border cases in order toprevent and combat crime, including terrorism and organized crime; and2. improve the protection of victims in cross-border cases.
The specific objectives of the Regulation are:
1. to improve the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders by extending the scope of themutual recognition instrument;
2. to introduce faster/simpler procedures and certificates; and3. to increase the number of victims receiving cross-border compensation.
Regulation 2018/1805 replaced the provisions of Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on
the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence as regards the freezing ofproperty between the Member States and The Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on theapplication of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and is directly and uniformly applicablein the EU Member States, with the exception of Ireland and Denmark, which are not bound by it and are
not subject to its application.14
The Regulation is systematically structured into five chapters: Chapter I defines the subject matter,definitions and scope; Chapter II deals with the transmission, recognition and execution of freezing orders;
Chapter III deals with the transmission, recognition and execution of confiscation orders; the penultimate
chapter contains general provisions such as the termination of the execution of a freezing order or confiscation
order, the management and disposal of frozen and confiscated property and the restitution of frozen property
to the victim; the final chapter contains final provisions such as the collection of statistics on the number of
executed and refused freezing and confiscation orders.
The Regulation is based on the general principle of mutual recognition and immediate execution of
judicial decisions, i.e. all judicial decisions in criminal matters taken in one Member State will normally bedirectly recognized and enforced by another Member State. However, this also presupposes confidence that9

https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/libcategories/EN/120/-1/-1/-1.
The Regulation came into force on 18 December 2018 and has applied since 19 December 2020.
11
Too few criminal assets were frozen and confiscated in cross-border cases, and there were no provisions for restitution
and compensation to victims.
12
Limited scope of mutual recognition instruments, uneven and inadequate implementation of existing legislation, complex
procedures and certificates.
13
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT accompanying the document Proposal fora Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders;
SWD/2016/0468 final - 2016/0412 (COD); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52016SC0468.
14
Recitals 56 and 57 of the Regulation.
10

40

VISITING EXPERT’S PAPER
the decisions to be recognized and executed will always be taken in compliance with the principles oflegality, subsidiarity and proportionality.15
However, the execution of freezing orders and confiscation orders does not require verification of the
double criminality of certain criminal offences that are listed in Article 3 of the Regulation,16 For othercriminal offences, the executing State may make the recognition and execution of a freezing order or
confiscation order subject to the condition that the acts giving rise to the freezing order or confiscation orderconstitute a criminal offence under the law of the executing State, whatever its constituent elements or
however it is described under the law of the issuing State.17
As regards the recognition and execution of freezing orders in the other Member State, the Regulation
provides for the use of a specific freezing certificate (a form) listed in Annex I of the Regulation. The freezing
certificate is issued either by a judge, court or public prosecutor competent in the case concerned or byanother competent authority designated as such by the issuing State,18 in which case it must be validated bya judge, court or public prosecutor before being transmitted to another EU Member State. As a general rule,
the freezing certificate should suffice, but EU Member States may make a special declaration that the issuingauthority must submit the original freezing order or a certified copy of it together with the freezing certificate.
In this case, only the freezing certificate needs to be translated into an official language of the executing Stateor any other language accepted by the executing State.
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person against whom the freezing order was issued
has property or income in a Member State, the issuing authority shall transmit the freezing certificate tothat Member State or sometimes to more Member States.19 When transmitted, the freezing certificate mustbe accompanied by a confiscation certificate or at least contain an instruction that the property should
remain frozen until the confiscation order has been transmitted and executed, and the estimated date of thistransmission must be indicated in the freezing certificate.20
The executing authority shall recognize and execute a transmitted freezing order in the same way as adomestic freezing order issued by an authority of the executing State, except in exceptional cases where theexecuting authority:-

decides not to recognize or execute the freezing order21 ;-postpones the execution of the freezing order22 ; and-considers that it is impossible to execute the freezing order.23

15

Recital 15 of the Regulation.
(1) Participation in a criminal organization; (2) terrorism; (3) trafficking in human beings; (4) sexual exploitation of children
and child pornography; (5) illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; (6) illicit trafficking in weapons,
munitions and explosives; (7) corruption; (8) fraud, including fraud and other criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial
interests as defined in Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1); (9) laundering of theproceeds of crime; (10) counterfeiting of currency, including the euro; (11) computer-related crime; (12) environmental crime,
including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties; (13) facilitationof unauthorised entry and residence; (14) murder or grievous bodily injury; (15) illicit trade in human organs and tissue;(16) kidnapping, illegal restraint or hostage-taking; (17) racism and xenophobia; (18) organized or armed robbery; (19)illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art; (20) swindling; (21) racketeering and extortion; (22)counterfeiting and piracy of products; (23) forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein; (24) forgery ofmeans of payment; (25) illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters; (26) illicit trafficking in nuclear
or radioactive materials; (27) trafficking in stolen vehicles; (28) rape; (29) arson; (30) crimes within the jurisdiction of theInternational Criminal Court; (31) unlawful seizure of aircraft or ships; (32) sabotage.
17
Article 3(2) of the Regulation.
18»issuing authority«.
19
Article 5 of the Regulation.
20
Article 4(6) of the Regulation.
21
Article 8 of the Regulation.
22
Article 10 of the Regulation.
23
Article 13 of the Regulation.
16

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 117
The time limits for recognition and execution of freezing orders are quite strict, as the executing authority
has to decide on the recognition of the freezing order no later than 48 hours after the receipt of the order,
and once such a decision has been taken, the executing authority has no more than 48 hours take thenecessary measures to execute the order.24
In the age of internet banking and cryptocurrencies, the speed with which law enforcement and judicial
authorities can freeze assets is of the outmost importance. In this regard, the EU has only adopted legal
instruments, but it has also established agencies such as Eurojust, Europol, OLAF and EPPO, which are key
EU agencies in facilitating cooperation and ensuring coordination between national investigating andprosecuting authorities in relation to criminal matters.
Eurojust acts through its National Members,25 their deputies and assistants, who are seconded26 by each
Member State in accordance with its legal system. They have the status of a prosecutor, a judge or arepresentative of a judicial authority with powers equivalent to those of a prosecutor or judge under nationallaw. In all stages27 of the asset recovery process, the National Members have the power to:
1. facilitate direct contact and exchange information between the issuing/requesting and executing/requested authorities;
2. organize Level II meetings28 with other National Members;
3. organize coordination meetings29 ; and4. set up a coordination centre.30
National authorities can ask their National members in the tracing stage to: identify the competentauthority; facilitate the spontaneous exchange of relevant financial information; transmit European
Investigation Orders (EIOs)31 and Letters of Request (LoR) for financial and banking information; and obtain
24

Article 9 of the Regulation.
There are 26 National Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France,
Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Finland and Sweden. There is also a representative from Denmark.
26
For five years (renewable once).
27
Tracing, freezing, confiscation and disposal stages.
28
A Level II meeting is an informal meeting to discuss the legal/practical/operational issues at stake. The aim is to quickly
and effectively identify solutions for legal/practical/operational issues that emerged and agree on the way forward. Level II
meetings can take place at any stage of the case between two or more National Members and are organized as face-to-facemeetings, as videoconferences or, particularly in bilateral cases, as telephone calls.
29
A Level III meeting is a formal meeting of Eurojust on a particular case with the participation of the competent national
authorities and is organized by the National Members. The aim is to reach an agreement on how to proceed in relation to
the legal/operational/practical issues at stake. External participants may include prosecutors, investigative judges, Liaison
Prosecutors and law enforcement officers from EU Member States or third countries, representatives of EU agencies/bodies
and international organizations such as Europol, EPPO and OLAF. Participants meet face-to-face at Eurojust’s premises in
The Hague, the Netherlands or via videoconference with simultaneous interpretation. Prior to the meeting, legal, operational
and practical issues are identified in a dedicated Level II preparatory meeting. During a coordination meeting, the national
authorities present the state of play of the investigations/proceedings in their country, can address any questions and/or
requests to other involved countries and share their thoughts on a possible way forward.
30
National Members can decide to set up a coordination centre (CC) in a particular case to facilitate a coordinated andsimultaneous execution of measures (such as arrests, hearings, searches and asset recovery measures) in several countries
during a joint action day. A CC acts as a central information hub where joint operations are constantly monitored andcoordinated by Eurojust, with all key stakeholders in direct and immediate contact with each other. The key to success isthe continuous availability of the representatives of the National Desks and/or Liaison Prosecutors of the involved countries
during the joint action day. Where appropriate, participation is extended to national judicial and law enforcement authorities
and representatives of EU agencies and bodies. The participation of all key stakeholders allows Eurojust to provide timely
legal and practical advice and to facilitate the issuing of critical judicial instruments, ensuring that the actions taken lead tosuccessful prosecutions.
31
Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation
Order in criminal matters defines the EIO as a judicial decision which has been issued or validated by a judicial authority of25

42

VISITING EXPERT’S PAPER
information on the status of the execution of EIOs and LoRs. At the freezing stage, the National Member can
provide advice and clarification on practical, legal and formal requirements relating to the freezing of assets,advise on the choice of legal instruments and serve as a channel for the transmission of freezing orders andLoRs. At the confiscation stage, National Members can also assist by providing advice on the choice of legal
instrument and on the necessary documentation, identifying of the competent authority in the executing/requested State and transmitting the confiscation order and the confiscation certificate or LoR to thecompetent authorities in the executing/requested State; facilitating the exchange of information on thestatus of the recognition of the confiscation order or execution of the LoR, and the exchange of relevant
documentation. At the disposal stage, the National Member can provide advice on the legal possibilities
available in the executing/requested State for assessing the value of the confiscated assets; clarify the legal
requirements of the executing/requested State to allow the return of the assets; facilitate the exchange of
information and the transmission of supplementary confiscation certificates or LoR; and provide advice on
the legal basis, procedural steps and appropriate channel of communication for potential asset-sharing
agreements between the involved countries.
National Members can also facilitate the above-mentioned cooperation with Denmark through the
Representative of Denmark to Eurojust32 and beyond the borders of the EU. Eurojust cooperates with third
countries through their liaison prosecutors seconded to Eurojust33 on the basis of an existing agreement ofcooperation or through the Eurojust Contact Point designated by the third country. Eurojust maintains upto-date contact details of the Eurojust Contact Points and the National Desks at Eurojust.34
The existence of a Liaison Prosecutor indicates that a cooperation agreement has been concluded between
Eurojust and the third country concerned. Eurojust has concluded agreements with 12 third countries.35 The
United Kingdom has had a Liaison Prosecutor at the Agency since 2021 under the EU-UK Trade andCooperation Agreement and the Working Arrangement signed with Eurojust in the same year. These
agreements create an enabling environment in which third countries can participate in and benefit from thepractical cooperation tools offered through Eurojust. International agreements provide the possibility for thesystematic exchange of operational information, including evidence and personal data, between Eurojust andthe national authorities of the countries involved, as well as international organizations. They also allow for
the secondment of Liaison Prosecutors from non-EU countries to Eurojust’s premises. This enables direct
operational cooperation between them, as prosecutors seconded from EU Member States and those seconded
from non-EU countries are all under the same roof. This often results in more successful investigations andprosecutions. Although Eurojust is not mandated to support cases exclusively between third countries, theLiaison Prosecutors present at Eurojust can take advantage of their proximity and the exchange between
them. Eurojust also provides a unique platform of services not available in all countries, such as fit-forpurpose meeting rooms, interpretation, specialized legal expertise with EU-wide understanding. These
resources are offered to effectively coordinate the investigation and prosecution of serious crime to secure
the necessary evidence.
The cooperation agreement clarifies the purpose of the agreement; the scope of cooperation; thecompetency for the execution of the agreement; the competencies of the seconded Liaison Prosecutor to
Eurojust; regular consultations between the signatories; operational and strategic meetings; the exchange ofa Member State (‘the issuing State’) to have one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in another Member
State (‘the executing State’) to obtain evidence.
32
EU Member State not taking part in the Eurojust Regulation.
33
Liaison Prosecutors seconded to Eurojust are from Norway, United States of America, Switzerland, Montenegro, Ukraine,
North Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, United Kingdom and Albania.
34
Designated Contact Points at Eurojust are from Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,
The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Kazakhstan, South Korea,
Kosovo (this designation is without prejudice to position on status, and is line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion
on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence), Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco,
Niger, Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan (Republic of China), Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Türkiye, Uruguay andUzbekistan.
35
Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine andthe United States of America.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 117
information and transfer of information to Eurojust; restrictions on use to protect personal and other data;
the transmission of special categories of personal data; the processing of personal data supplied by bothparties of the agreement; the rights of data subjects, namely the right of correction, blockage and deletion of
personal data and time limits for the storage of personal data; liability; expenses; the settlement of disputes;
the termination of the agreement; and the date of application. More details on the content of each cooperationagreement can be found on Eurojust’s website.36
Since 2019,37 Eurojust can no longer negotiate or conclude international agreements, but the Agency
works closely with the European Commission to develop four-year strategies to increase its internationalreach. These strategies identify the third countries and international organizations with which there is anoperational need for cooperation. Based on this list, the Commission submits to the Council of the EU its
Recommendation for a Decision authorizing the opening of negotiations on international cooperationagreements with Eurojust. The Commission therefore acts as the EU negotiator appointed by the Council
and concludes an agreement between the EU and a third country on cooperation with Eurojust. In November
2019, Eurojust adopted its first four-year strategy, which included Argentina and Colombia. Although theCommission did not include these two countries in its Recommendation, the Council adopted its Decision on
1 March 2021 authorizing the opening of negotiations with 13 third countries (Algeria, Argentina, Armenia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey).
Cooperation with third countries in the absence of an agreement is also possible on a case-by-case basis
and is dealt with through a designated Eurojust Contact Point. This cooperation requires a formal appointment
letter by the responsible authority or a working arrangement. In order to facilitate the appointment procedureand the transmission of relevant information on the Eurojust Contact Point(s), the appointing authorities arerequested to submit a formal appointment letter to Eurojust, accompanied by an appointment form. The
appointment of a Contact Point is a simple procedure. In the appointment form, the appointing authorities
have to state the name and address of the appointing authority; the name, title, work address and corporate
contact details38 of the Eurojust Contact Point; the languages in which the Eurojust Contact Point can becontacted and its areas of expertise; and any other relevant information. Both documents should be sent toinstitutional.affairs@eurojust.europa.eu. It is not necessary to send a paper version; electronic versions are
sufficient. Once a Contact Point is appointed, his/her contact details will become available to the National
Desks and Liaison Prosecutors at Eurojust. Eurojust sets up a videoconference with newly appointed Contact
Points to explain how and when they can contact Eurojust and vice versa.
National Members cannot exchange operational data with Contact Points unless an assessment for thetransfer of operational personal data by Eurojust is carried out in accordance with Article 58(1)(b) of theEurojust Regulation.
Requests from National Members to Eurojust’s Data Protection Officer (DPO)39 to carry out an assessmentof a third country40 consists of the Eurojust case number; a short description of the case and crime type; the36

https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/states-and-partners/third-countries/international-agreements.
The Eurojust Regulation, which became applicable in December 2019 also transformed Eurojust’s external relations policy.
38
Phone number, mobile number, fax number, email address.
39
Article 36 of the Eurojust Regulation.
40
Any transfer shall be subject to the conditions laid down in Article 56(1) of the Eurojust Regulation: Eurojust may transfer
operational personal data to a third country or international organization, subject to compliance with the applicable dataprotection rules and the other provisions of this Regulation, and only if the following conditions are met:
  a. the transfer is necessary for the performance of Eurojust’s tasks;  b. the authority of the third country or the international organization to which the operational personal data are transferred
is competent in law enforcement and criminal matters;
  c. where the operational personal data to be transferred in accordance with this Article have been transmitted or madeavailable to Eurojust by a Member State, Eurojust shall obtain prior authorization for the transfer from the relevant
competent authority of that Member State in compliance with its national law, unless that Member State has authorized
such transfers in general terms or subject to specific conditions;  d. in the case of an onward transfer to another third country or international organization by a third country orinternational organization, Eurojust shall require the transferring third country or international organization to obtainprior authorization from Eurojust for that onward transfer.
  Eurojust shall only grant authorization referred to in point (d) with prior authorization from the Member State from which
37

44

VISITING EXPERT’S PAPER
name of the third country; an indication of the specific categories of data41 that Eurojust would transfer tothe third country; a specification of the data subjects42 whose data would be transferred; the seriousness ofthe offence43 ; the amount of data exchanged and the time period for the exchange; the competent authority
in the third country with whom one would be likely to exchange data with44 ; a legally binding agreementwith the third country45 ; the death penalty and the human rights situation; and urgency.46
The DPO will respond within ten working days or less in urgent cases. In particularly complex cases, theDPO and the National Member may agree on a longer time frame. The DPO will make an assessment on acase-by-case basis, addressing in particular the issues referred to in Articles 51 and 52 of the Eurojust
Regulation. Following the DPO’s assessment, the College47 will decide whether to transfer the data to thethird country in question. During the operational tour de table, the National Desk and the DPO will present
the matter, and the College will then decide whether or not to approve the transfer of operational personal
data in the specific case, following the DPO’s assessment.
The role of the Eurojust Contact Point is to: facilitate communication regarding MLA or extradition
requests (procedures, follow-up); facilitate direct contact with the competent national authorities; clarify
provisions of national law or provide legal advice on the national legal system; facilitate the organization ofor the competent authority’s participation in coordination meetings or joint investigation teams; resolve
general issues arising in the context of judicial cooperation with Eurojust; and send questions to National
Members of Eurojust on specific cases or on particular provisions of the national law of the EU Member
State concerned.
Although there are differences in approach and legislation and there is a lack of harmonization in the fieldof asset recovery within the EU, all Member States can seek the assistance of Eurojust regardless of thestage of their proceedings in order to simplify and speed up the cross-border execution of asset recovery
measures. Over the years, Eurojust has continued to play an important role in improving cooperation incriminal matters between Member States and third countries, in particular by:a) facilitating the recognition and execution of freezing and confiscation orders and the execution ofrequests for judicial cooperation;b) assisting in the drafting of freezing and confiscation orders or LoRs, the identification of competentauthorities in the executing or requested Member States, the exchange of information and thetranslation of relevant information;c) enabling the coordination of investigations and helping investigating and prosecuting authorities to act
simultaneously in the execution of freezing orders;d) clarifying the legal requirements of both issuing and executing authorities, and solving practicalproblems arising from the various legal and procedural requirements in different legal systems;
the data originated, after taking due account of all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the criminal offence, thepurpose for which the operational personal data were originally transferred and the level of personal data protection in thethird country or international organization to which the operational personal data are to be transferred onward.
41
See Annex II of the Eurojust Regulation for a list of the categories of personal data referred to in Article 27 when defining
the personal data that Eurojust may legally process and see Article 76 of Regulation 2018/1725.
42
E.g. suspect, victim, witness.
43
What the maximum penalty would be for the type of offence being investigated.
44
In accordance with Article 56(1)(c) of the Eurojust Regulation, the authority of the third country or the internationalorganization in which the operational personal data are transferred is competent in law enforcement and criminal matters.
45
Whether there is a relevant legally binding (international or JIT) agreement between the third country and the Member
State in question.
46
Article 56(4) of the Eurojust Regulation states: ‘Eurojust may in urgent cases transfer operational personal data without
prior authorization from a Member State in accordance with point (c) of paragraph 1. Eurojust shall only do so if the transferof the operational personal data is necessary for the prevention of an immediate and serious threat to the public securityof a Member State or of a third country or to the essential interests of a Member State, and where the prior authorization
cannot be obtained in good time. The authority responsible for giving prior authorization shall be informed without delay.’
47
Article 10 of the Eurojust Regulation.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 117e) assisting Member States in reaching agreements on the disposal of confiscated property and thesharing of assets; andf) 	 identifying best practices for the management of assets from the outset of an investigation.

46