VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
THE STRATEGY AND EXPERIENCE OF EUROJUST REGARDINGANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES
M. Sc. Boštjan Lamešič＊

I. INTRODUCTION
Corruption has many complex social, political and economic implications and its criminal activity is taking
place both within state borders and beyond them. Nowadays it is not unusual for perpetrators to commit
corruption-related criminal offences in one State, hide or launder their illicitly gained proceeds in a second
State and utilise the means of communication (telephone, postal service, internet) and the financial system of athird State. In this way, corruptive criminal offences are becoming transnational. Consequently, the law
enforcement agencies and prosecution services responsible for the investigation and prosecution of suchoffences must have a thorough knowledge of international criminal law and its tools to properly address thechallenges brought up by perpetrators whose activities affect different states. They have to know how to
obtain information or evidence and assistance from another state, often in a form admissible before theirdomestic courts.
That is why anti-corruption measures not only fall within the remit of national politics and law making but
also take the form of awareness that corruption is a problem that can only be addressed effectively by acollaborative approach between international actors.
This awareness is relatively high within the Member States of the European Union,1 where 28 different
national legal systems including EU law exist. This makes cooperation between law enforcement andjudiciary challenging but necessary. Bear in mind that between Member States there is free movement ofgoods, people (no border controls), services and capital, but there is no EU police or EU prosecutor because
jurisdiction ends at the borders of the Member State(s).

II. EUROJUST AND ITS STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL ANTICORRUPTION MEASURESThe awareness that corruption could be tackled by a collaborative approach within the EU was also
recognised by EU Member States in 2002 with the establishment of the European Unionʼs Judicial
Cooperation Unit, or a body of the European Union which has legal personality and is capable of supporting
national authorities in the fight against corruption in its international dimension2. This Unit referred to as
Eurojust was set up by Council Decision 2002/187/JHA and further strengthened by Council Decision
2009/426/JHA. Eurojust is made up of 28 National Members who are experienced EU prosecutors, judges orpolice officers of equivalent competence3 from each Member State and who are required to have theirregular place of work at the premises of Eurojust, which is in The Hague, the Netherlands.
The main mission of Eurojust is to stimulate and improve the coordination of investigation andAssistant to the National Member for Slovenia at Eurojust, Vice Chair of Economic Crime Team of Eurojust; The Office of theState Prosecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia, District State Prosecutor.
1
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden and the United Kingdom (Brexit: For the time being, the United Kingdom remains a full member of the EU and rights
and obligations continue to fully apply in and to the UK).
2
Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious
crime (Official Journal L 063 of 6 March. 2002) and further strengthened by Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December
2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing thefight against serious crime ((Official Journal L 138 of 4 June 2009) hereinafter: Eurojust Decision).
3
They could be supported by their Deputies, Assistants, Seconded National Experts or European Judicial Network Trainees.
＊

119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

prosecution among the competent judicial authorities of the European Unionʼs Member States when they deal
with serious cross-border and organised crime4. Eurojust may also assist investigations and prosecutions
concerning a particular Member State and a non-Member State if a cooperation agreement between Eurojust
and the non-Member State has been concluded or an essential interest in providing such assistance exists5.
Such agreements may, in particular, concern the exchange of information, including personal data, and thesecondment of liaison officers or liaison magistrates to Eurojust6. Eurojust has concluded such agreementswith Switzerland, Montenegro, Norway, the United States of America and Ukraine to second their liaison
officers or liaison magistrates to Eurojust. There is also an additional tool commonly used for improving
cooperation between Member States and third States through Eurojust and this takes the form of theEurojust Contact Points in third States7, but their involvement does not provide for the possibility of
exchanging operational information, including personal data8. Eurojust is not limited to establishing andmaintaining cooperative relations only with third States, but can also conclude agreements with organisations
such as international organisations governed by public law, other bodies governed by public law based on anagreement between two or more States and with the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol)9.
So far Eurojust is also closely cooperating with several organisations10.
Eurojust is committed to supporting the Member States prosecutorial and judicial authorities in theirefforts to fight corruption. This can be done through support at the strategic level and at the operational level.
A. Strategic Anti-Corruption Measures
Support provided by Eurojust on a strategic level refers to the hosting of meetings of the Consultative
Forum of Prosecutors General and Directors of Public Prosecutions of the Member States of the European
Union (hereinafter: Consultative Forum), at which the participants share their opinions and exchange
experiences of different topics relating to the fight against different types of crime including corruption. The
Consultative Forum has dealt with the topic of corruption and the problems faced by prosecutors incorruption-related cases with an international element in its meeting on 23 June 201111 and meeting on 11
According to Article 4 of Eurojust Decision, the general competence of Eurojust shall cover the same types of crime andoffences as those for which Europol has competence, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings,
counterfeiting, money laundering, computer crime, crime against property or public goods including fraud and corruption,
criminal offences affecting the European Unionʼs financial interests, environmental crime and participation in criminalorganisations. Additionally, for other types of offences, Eurojust may assist in investigations and prosecutions at the request of a
Member State.
5
Article 3(1) of Eurojust Decision.
6
Article 26a(2) of Eurojust Decision.
7
So far Eurojustʼs network of judicial contact points in third States totals 44, namely: Albania, Algeria (there is no active contact
point for Algeria at the moment and Eurojust is in the process of clarifying the status of the Contact Points with the Algerianauthorities, so requests for cooperation and assistance to Algeria should be channelled via diplomatic routes), Argentina, Bolivia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cape Verde, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, fYROM, Georgia, Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel,
Jordan, Japan, Republic of Kazakhstan (informal contact), South Korea, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Moldova,
Mongolia, Montenegro, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palestinian Authority, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia,
Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan (Republic of China), Thailand, Tunisia and Turkey, Ukraine and the USA.
8
Matters dealt by Eurojust Contact Points are speeding up or facilitating the execution of mutual legal assistance (MLA)
requests or extradition requests; ensuring communication between Eurojust and the concerned third State, and providing
information on the state of play of a particular case; clarifying particular provisions of the national law or legal advice related to
the legal system of the third State concerned; providing assistance on how to submit a MLA request or an extradition;
facilitating the organisation or the competent authorityʼs participation in coordination meetings or in joint investigation teams;
attendance of coordination meetings at Eurojust; identifying the national competent authorities and establishing contact withthem and with central authorities; solving any kind of problems occurring in the framework of judicial cooperation with
Eurojust; and sending queries to Eurojust National Members on specific cases or on particular provisions of the national law of
the Member State concerned.
9
Article 26a(1) of Eurojust Decision.
10
International Criminal Court (ICC), La Red Iberoamericana de Cooperación Jurídica Internacional (IberRed), United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), European Union Agency for Law
Enforcement Training (CEPOL), European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), European Union Agency for Law Enforcement
Cooperation (Europol), European Commission, International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO-INTERPOL), European Borderand Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), European
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), European Union Naval Force Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED), European
Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems
in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA).
4

120

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

June 2014.12
At the meeting held on 23 June 2011, the Consultative Forum identified the major obstacles toinvestigation and prosecution of corruption-related crimes, such as problems related to gathering of evidence
and its admissibility before courts; insufficient coordination of investigations that are ongoing in different
Member States simultaneously; difficulties in obtaining timely intelligence information; the attention of media
and the general public in cases of high-level corruption and the impact of those cases on the political situationin the country and often fragmented national systems. Best practices were also identified and recommended,
for instance the usefulness of Eurojust coordination meetings and establishment of joint investigation teams(hereinafter: JIT) in cross-border cases and their more extensive use; specialisation of prosecutors to fightcorruption efficiently; establishment of specialised prosecution units, training and instructions on specificproblems, features and legislation on corruption should be provided for prosecutors at all levels; prosecutors
should be involved early on in the investigation of the corruption-related criminal offence; prosecutors shouldclosely cooperate with financial and other experts in relevant professions; use of covert investigative
measures with respect to basic fundamental rights and increased transparency in the area of taxation anduse of public funds13. The Consultative Forum also touched upon the topic of seizure and confiscation of
criminal assets and concluded that seizure, confiscation and recovery of the proceeds of crime are crucial
tools in the fight against serious cross-border crime, in particular in the fight against corruption and money
laundering, but due to prosecutorsʼ lack of direct access to relevant registers (vehicles, vessels, real estate andbank accounts) there are many obstacles in identifying assets and asset holders in Member States and evenmore when hidden in third States. The Consultative Forum has therefore concluded that the lack ofconsolidated registers should be overcome and that direct access to them by prosecutors is essential. It wasalso proposed that the European Union should take certain measures through a clear and simple regulatory
framework to ensure the development of common standards in anti-corruption legislation and its definitions;laws and regulations in specific areas of criminal procedure and in various areas of crimes, including
corruption, should be further approximated; the reinforcement of the principle of mutual recognition;difficulties in judicial cooperation and execution of requests for mutual legal assistance could be overcome
with minimum standards of criminal procedure; common standards for the gathering and admissibility ofevidence are required and conflicts of jurisdiction must be addressed.
At the meeting held on 11 June 2014, the Consultative Forum members discussed their practicalexperiences of investigating and prosecuting complex high-profile corruption cases with an international
dimension and their views on how best to tackle corruption. They reported that most common challenges
arise from complex cross-border corruption cases involving the investigation and prosecution of informationand communications technology, defence, transportation and public procurement sectors; delays identifying,gathering and assessing evidence and in connection with the execution of requests for mutual legal
assistance; lack of a uniform approach to legislation, in particular regarding privileges and immunities and theuse of intercept evidence. Consultative Forum members also shared their best practices, such as providing
protection to whistle-blowers; providing specialised training to national authorities and stimulating crossborder coordination; access to relevant databases by national competent authorities; establishment ofmultidisciplinary teams or taskforces with the cooperation of different experts in relevant fields (tax, customs
and excise, forensic IT, finance and accounting); adoption of legislative and non-legislative measures toincrease transparency; ensuring the independence of the prosecution service and judiciary; establishment of aEuropean public prosecution office; prioritising identification and asset recovery within the EU and in third
States; raising awareness by publishing guidance and information about procedures, broadcasting trials or
publishing judicial decisions and details of confiscation measures executed; and mutual recognition of judicial
decisions.
At both these meetings of the Consultative Forum, the role of Eurojust was emphasised in facilitating andsupporting judicial cooperation in corruption cases not only between Member States but also with third
States. It was also stated that the practitioners should make more extensive use of the tools that Eurojust
Council of the European Union, Outcome report 17457/11 (Brussels, Belgium, 23 November 2011); http: //data. consilium.
europa.eu/doc/document/ST-17457-2011-INIT/en/pdf; accessed 12 September 2018.
12
Council of the European Union, Outcome report 13581/14 (Brussels, Belgium, 24 September 2014); http: //data. consilium.
europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13581-2014-INIT/en/pdf, accessed 12 September 2018.
13
Would a register of how much individuals earn and owe to tax authorities help transparency and discourage corruption?
11

121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

could offer, in particular coordination meetings and the establishment and financing of JITs.
Furthermore, at strategic level Eurojust contributed to the European Commissionʼs first EU AntiCorruption Report14. Eurojust provided information on its efforts in the fight against corruption, its corruption
casework, including case specifications and involvement of third States, as well as corruption cases registered
for the purpose of creating a JIT. Finally at strategic level, Eurojust has been participating as an observer in
the Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network (CARIN) and in the Asset Recovery Offices Platform(ARO) since 2004 and 2008 respectively.
B. Operational Anti-Corruption Measures
At operational level, National Members at Eurojust are able to assist national authorities in Member
States on a 24 hour/7 day basis15 through facilitation and execution of Letters of Request (hereinafter: LoR) or
European investigation orders, organising coordination meetings and coordination centres and throughestablishing and financing JITs, although their assistance and support may be given only upon request or
notification by the Member Statesʼ competent authorities.
1. Facilitation of Letters of Request or European Investigation Order
The competent authorities of Member States can send the mentioned requests to Eurojust either
spontaneously or on the basis of the information exchanged pursuant to Article 13 of Eurojust Decision. In
relation to corruption, the competent national authorities must inform their National Member “without undue
delay of any case in which at least three Member States are directly involved and for which requests for ordecisions on judicial cooperation, including regarding instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual
recognition, have been transmitted to at least two Member States16.” Requests for assistance or information
may also be received from other institutions or bodies, such as Europol, OLAF and the European Judicial
Network (EJN). In the period from 2004 to 2017, 588 cases of corruption were registered at Eurojust. Chart 1
shows the number of corruption cases registered in comparison to all registered cases broken down by year17.
Corruption cases were registered most frequently by Greece (102), Romania (58), Italy (34) and the United
Kingdom (34).
Chart 1: Registered corruption cases vs total number of registered cases by year

European Commission, EU Anti-Corruption Report, (Brussels, Belgium, 03. 02. 2014); https: //ec. europa. eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/documents/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/corruption/docs/acr_2014_en. pdf
accessed on 12.09.2018.
15
Article 5a of Eurojust Decision.
16
Article 13(6) of Eurojust Decision.
17
The Operations Department at Eurojust produced and analysed the relevant statistics covering the period from 1 January
2002 to 31 December 2017. There is no available data for the years 2002‒2003. The sources for the statistics are the CaseManagement System (CMS) and data available on coordination meetings and JITs. Please note that Eurojust has only
systematically collected information on coordination meetings and JITs from 2012 onwards. The data was retrieved on 20
September 2018.
14122

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

Chart 2: Corruption cases registered by Member State

Chart 2 shows the number of cases registered by each Member State. Ireland did not register any
corruption cases at all in this period.
A total of 117 Eurojust corruption cases involving non-EU jurisdictions were registered at Eurojust; theseare shown broken down by year in Chart 3 and by country in Chart 4.
Chart 3: Registered corruption cases involving non-EU jurisdictions by year

123

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

Chart 4: Registered corruption cases involving non-EU jurisdictions by country in the period from 2012
to 201718

After receiving an LoR or European investigation order from domestic national authorities or a National
Member of another Member State, the request or European investigation order should be examined by the
National Member visually19, linguistically20 and for content21. Depending on the complexity of the case andpossibility of resolving issues related to the request and its swift and efficient execution, the National Member
may discuss at a preparatory meeting22 with the National Member(s) concerned an assessment of the need,purpose and objective of a coordination meeting23.
2. Organisation of Coordination Meetings
The purpose of a coordination meeting is to stimulate and achieve agreement between national
authorities on their cooperation and/or the coordination of investigations and prosecutions at national level.
In order to organise a coordination meeting, the National Member (s) have to check the availability andnecessity of the national authoritiesʼ participation at this coordination meeting24, the use of videoconferencing
for all or some of the participants as an alternative to their being physically present at the coordination
meeting, confidentiality and disclosure obligations, decide on whether interpretation services are required
On 1 July 2013 Croatia joined the EU and Eurojust, so for that reason was not considered to be under EU jurisdiction before
that date.
19
Whether the request is signed, stamped and readable because sometimes scans of copies are not very good quality.
20
Quality of translation.
21
Description of the offence; statutory qualification of the offence and evidence on which suspicion rests; what is requested(perhaps publicly available information is requested and can be immediately provided by the National Member. For instance in
Slovenia there is a register of bank account numbers assigned to legal persons but not physical persons; in order to obtain thebank account number of a physical person an LoR is needed); urgency of the case (statute of limitations is about to expire,detention, covert measures, media coverage); supplementary information for LoR possibly needed (missing information; mostly
orders/decisions by competent authority).
22
So-called Level II meeting.
23
So-called Level III meeting.
24
If one Member State only has to provide bank records, it is not necessary for its authorities to participate in the coordination
meeting.
18

124

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

during the coordination meeting and on the venue of the coordination meeting25.
For an efficient coordination meeting to take place, the National Member should explain the assistancerequested for facilitation, support and coordination or information to their national authorities that are
participating in the meeting26 before the coordination meeting is actually held. National Member(s) should
anticipate and propose to address practical and legal issues at the coordination meeting to participants of thecoordination meeting and prepare the requested documents or evidence in advance so they can be shared at
the coordination meeting. For reasons of efficiency, the participants of the coordination meeting are asked toprepare a short presentation briefly explaining the facts of the case and focusing on explaining what kind ofevidence is in their possession and what requests they will make of other participants at the coordination
meeting27. The presentations should be sent in advance to the responsible organiser at Eurojust in order toprepare the necessary materials for the meeting.
Chart 5 and Chart 6 show the number of coordination meetings on corruption in comparison to all
coordination meetings organised broken down by year and which Member States organised and participatedin them28.
Chart 5: Coordination meetings on corruption vs all coordination meetings organised by year

In principle it should be held at Eurojust premises but it can be also elsewhere if this reduces costs, if critical participants in
the Member State concerned are able to attend and for other reasons of convenience related to the operational needs of thecase.
26
Prosecutors, judges, magistrates, police officers or others from the national authorities who are in charge of the case and the
National Members concerned. Liaison Magistrates and representatives from third States involved may be invited. If thecoordination meeting is held in The Hague, Eurojust covers catering and lunch during the coordination meeting,accommodation for one night and travel expenses for only two participants from each involved State. Simultaneousinterpretation could also be provided, which allows direct communication between the participants on legal and practical issues.
27
Whether they are planning to issue or execute requests for additional evidence, discussion of prevention and/or settlement ofconflicts of jurisdiction and related procedural steps; establishment of joint investigation teams; possibilities for transfer ortaking over the proceeding, planning of a common action day and coordination centre etc.
28
Please note that Eurojust has only systematically collected information on coordination meetings from 2012 onwards.
25

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

Chart 6: Member States organising and participating in coordination meetings on corruption

Representatives of non-EU jurisdictions participated in a total of 24 coordination meetings held on
corruption cases in the period from 2012 to 2017 but please bear in mind that in 2012‒2013 no third State
representatives participated in any coordination meetings on corruption.
Chart 7: Non-EU jurisdictions participation in coordination meetings on corruption cases by year126

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

Chart 8: Non-EU jurisdictions participating in coordination meetings on corruption by country

3. Setting Up and Financing of Joint Investigation Teams
The second international cooperation tool that Eurojust has to offer to practitioners in the fight against
corruption is its assistance in establishing and financing JITs. Firstly I would like to briefly present somebasic facts about JITs, such as the statutory framework and the prerequisites for their establishment; thecontent of JIT agreements; the structure and activities of JITs; and the benefits and problems associated withJITs.
A JIT is established with an agreement between competent authorities of two or more States to carry out
criminal investigations on their territory for a limited time period. The statutory framework usually
regulates the conditions under which the JIT must be set up and its working methods. There are regulations
in place for the establishment and operation of JITs between EU Member States29, other regulations govern
JITs between EU Member States and third States30 and some regulations governing JITs were adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly31.
The establishment of a JIT is required in cases where an ongoing investigation in one State requires

Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistancein Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union; Article 13; Official Journal of the European
Communities C 197/1 dated 12 July 2000 and Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Joint Investigation Teams(2002/465/JHA); Official Journal of the European Communities L 162 dated 20 June 2002.
30
I. Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959; Article
20; Council of Europe; European Treaty Series ‒ No. 182);
II. Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the application ofcertain provisions of the Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of
the European Union and the 2001 Protocol; Official Journal of the European Communities L 26 dated 29 January 2004;
III. Agreement between the EU and the US on mutual legal assistance; Article 5; Official Journal of the European Communities
L 291, 7 November 2009;
IV. Police Cooperation Convention for Southeast Europe (PCC SEE) of 5 May 2006 applicable between several Member States(Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia) and countries of the Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, fYROM,
Moldova, Montenegro and Serbia); Article 27; andV. Convention on Mutual Assistance and Co-Operation between Customs Administrations of 18.12.1997, Article 24.
31
I. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime of 15 November 2000; Article 19;
II. United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 20 December 1988;
Article 9;III. United Nations Convention against Corruption of 14 December 2005; Article 49.
29

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

complex and demanding investigative activities by other States and where the circumstances of the casenecessitate coordinated and harmonised action by all the States involved. A JIT should be established at as
early a stage in the procedure as possible. Please bear in mind that the severity of the criminal offence
committed is less important than its cross-border nature. Usually the request to establish a JIT comes fromcompetent authorities of one State; it is rarely at the request of Eurojust. Before setting up a JIT, it isadvisable for the competent authorities to meet and review the case files and exchange relevant
documentation.
The content of an agreement for establishing a JIT is best defined at the beginning of operational
activities. I propose that only general elements be defined in the agreement and that the description of thefacts of the case and the type of the offence should be brief as possible. My advice would also be that rather
than citing and presenting numerous domestic material and procedural criminal provisions in the agreement,
the JIT parties should instead only state that JIT must carry out its operations in accordance with conditions
stated in Article 13 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member Statesof the European Union or another international document and the law of the (Member) State in which it
operates and by stating only the provisions of domestic legislation regarding establishment of JIT.
A model agreement32 has been developed33 to facilitate the setting up of a JIT in 23 different official
languages. National Members at Eurojust, with the help of the JITs Network Secretariat,34 can provide
assistance in drafting the JIT agreement and discussing which clauses are required to supplement or deviate
from the model agreement. Parties to the agreement are national authorities and not necessarily persons incharge of the case. Nevertheless, parties designate the persons in charge of the case as JIT leaders and othermembers of the JIT. JIT objectives are to gather evidence and share relevant information, to identify those
responsible and where appropriate to disrupt their activities and use evidence gathered for the purpose ofprosecution and the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime in involved States. Parties should agree
not only on which authority should investigate but more importantly also on which authority will prosecute
whom. Parties to the JIT should also agree in which involved States JIT will operate and its duration andscope. The parties may also agree on some other details35.
A JIT consists of a team leader, team members and team participants. The team leader is usually aprosecutor or judge due to the fact that a JIT is considered a special form of mutual legal assistance. The
team should have one leader, but practice to date has shown that countries prefer multiple leaders to beappointed, i. e. one team leader for each involved State. The team leader must be informed about each
investigative measure and operational activity. Team members are mostly representatives of law
enforcement. The role, purpose and tasks of other team participants such as the National Member at
Eurojust, Europol, OLAF or FBI should be clearly designated in the agreement. National Members areentitled to participate in JITs and National Members must be invited to participate when a JIT benefits from
EU funding36. The question of whether other national authorities such as tax office, customs and excise
administration, office for prevention of money laundering, court of audit, etc. could be a member of JIT can
only be answered by domestic legislation. In Slovenia they cannot because Article 161b of the Slovenian
Criminal Procedure Act states that the agreement on the establishment and operation of joint investigation
teams in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia or other countries has to be concluded by the Public
Prosecutor General after obtaining the opinion of the Director General of the Police, meaning that only these
two organisations can participate in JITs.
This document can be downloaded from the Eurojust website: http: //www. eurojust. europa. eu/doclibrary/JITs/
JITs%20framework/Model%20Agreement%20for%20setting%20up%20a%20Joint%20Investigation%20Team/JIT-2017-MODELEN.pdf accessed on 13.09.2018.
33
Council Resolution on a Model Agreement for setting up a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), Official Journal of the European
Communities C 18 dated 19 January 2017.
34
The JITs Network Secretariat was established in 2011 in accordance with Article 25a(2) of Eurojust Decision. The Secretariat
promotes the activities of the Network, supports the National Experts in their work and since September 2013 it is also
responsible for the funding of JITs.
35
Such as possible changes to the agreement; performance assessment and work evaluation every three to six months or not atall; language of communication; communication with the media; right to carry firearms; costs/expenditures/insurance;translation/interpretation expenses; financial support for the JIT (submission of applications for EU funding ‒ dedicated form);
use of facilities (office accommodation, vehicles, other technical equipment); etc.
36
Article 9f of Eurojust Decision.
32

128

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERSTeam members must have clear information and guidelines regarding differences in criminal legislation of
the involved States and evidence-gathering methods to ensure the admissibility of evidence. Team members
should be aware of the hierarchy and competences of other JIT members or participants. A JIT is usually
established in a State where the investigation is predominantly expected to take place but that does not meanthat all members have to be physically in same the location. JIT members can regularly meet and exchange
information in person, by exchanging emails or holding telephone conversations. In some cases, each Statecan undertake operational actions in its territory, but may act outside its territory if so agreed (housesearches and interrogations, review of seized documents; presence on the spot). The JIT organisation should
be determined on a case-by-case basis and consideration should also be given to the costs of making staff
available, the length and nature of the investigation, number of judicial bodies, etc.
One of the best advantages of JIT in comparison with MLA requests is that each involved State operates
in line with its own laws and that there is joint decision-making as to what operational activities should be
carried out and when, and which authority will prosecute whom. There is direct exchange of information
between JIT members and direct requests for investigative actions between team members, which meansthat MLA requests are not needed. As a consequence, JITs save time and money. Team members can also bepresent during home searches and the interrogation of witnesses and suspects, something which can bring
added value to the investigation of criminal offences. Informal exchange of specific knowledge takes place
between team members. When National Members at Eurojust are invited to participate in JITs, this meansthat JIT members and/or national authorities can also benefit from EU funding.
In complex cross-border cases where sometimes huge amounts of documents are gathered despite a JIT
being established, lengthy and costly translations may delay investigation and prosecution. That is why it isimportant for the team members to be fluent in the language of another involved State. If that is not possible,
then they should at least be fluent in a language that is used in communications and defined in the JIT
agreement37. JIT members should also try to benefit from funding which is available and provided by
Eurojust.
In the period from 2012 to 2017, 12 JITs on corruption (3.5% of all JITs, 345 JITs in total) were established.
Chart 9 and Chart 10 illustrate the number of new JITs on corruption in comparison to all new JITs
established broken down by year38 and by participating country.
Chart 9: Newly established JITs on corruption cases vs total number of new JITs established by year

37
38

Usually English is the language used.
Please note that Eurojust has only systematically collected information on JITs from 2012 onwards.

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 107

Chart 10: Newly established JITs on corruption cases by year and by participating country

There was one corruption JIT with a third State (Switzerland) in 2016.
4. Setting Up of Coordination Centres
Eurojust can also offer a third international cooperation tool to practitioners in the fight against
corruption: the organisation of coordination centres. In cases where involved States have a joint action day39,
they should consider the possibility of coordinating their national authorities and immediate exchange of
operational information and/or evidence or resolving any other legal and practical issues by setting up acoordination centre. A dedicated meeting room is available at Eurojust premises for this exact purpose. Thisroom is equipped with the requisite technical equipment, such as computers, printers, telephones andvideoconference facilities (dedicated lines), which can be used by participants from national authorities,
National Members and Eurojust staff responsible for the technical facilities, other administrative matters andfor the joint press release.
The first coordination centre was organised in 2012 and coordination centres started to be used as a toolfor judicial cooperation in cross-border cases. A total of 50 coordination centres have been organised sincethen but none for a corruption case.

III. CONCLUSION
The fight against corruption does not manifest merely in implementing sets of reforms and regulations
into national and international legislation; it is also manifested in law enforcement, prosecution and judicial
proceedings. If the fight against corruption is not effective in cases when corruption-related criminal offenceswere detected, then we can say that crime does pay. Practitioners from Member States dealing withcorruption cases usually have many legal and practical issues which they need to resolve and this is where
Eurojust comes perfectly into play. The role and significance of Eurojustʼs work in the field of multilateral
judicial cooperation, coordination and exchange of information in cases involving serious cross-border crime isbeing increasingly recognised by practitioners in Member States because Eurojust is providing its effective
coordination, cooperation and support services on a daily basis to national authorities in operational cases,
mainly as follows: its ability to act on a 24 hour/7-day basis;
 facilitating transmission of information;

39

Operational activities are executing simultaneously in involved States.

130

21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMMEVISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS advising on drafting LoR and European investigation orders before their issue, including translationof these documents;
 speeding up the execution of LoR and European investigation orders; identifying and analysing legal issues and practical difficulties;
 providing possible solutions to legal issues and practical difficulties;
 collecting and analysing information coming from the Member States conducting investigations into
possible further links and new aspects of investigation;
 organising coordination meetings and setting up coordination centres; stimulating further exchange of information during and after coordination meetings andcoordination centres; developing and sharing best practices against corruption;
 raising awareness in the fight against corruption;
 avoiding duplication of investigations and prevention of the conflicts of jurisdiction and double
jeopardy (“ne bis in idem”);
 numerous formal and informal contacts inside and outside the EU; and facilitating the setting up of JITs and their funding.

131