Annual report 2005.
Date: 2006-07-07
Institutions: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation
Subjects: Eurojust, activity report

A n n u a l   R e p o r t   2 0 0 5

C O N T E N T S

Foreword 

1  The Structure and Development of Eurojust 

2  Legal Environment and Partners 

3  Casework   

4  Relations with National Authorities 

5  Third States 

6  Administration 

7  Assessment of Performance against Objectives set for 2005 

8  Eurojust’s Objectives for 2006 

9  Vision 

10  Executive Summary and Conclusions 

11  Annexes 

4

10

14

28

68

72

76

86 

90

94

98

102

F O R E W O R D

I am pleased to present the fourth Eurojust Annual Report. The report is for the calendar year 

2005  and  is  prepared  in  accordance  with  Article  32(1)  of  the  Eurojust  Decision  which  requires 

the  President,  on  behalf  of  the  College,  "to  report  to  the  Council  in  writing  every  year  on  the 

activities and management, including budgetary management of Eurojust."

In  the  Annual  Report  for  2004  I  suggested  that  Eurojust  had  completed  the  first  phase  of  its 

establishment. December 2005 saw the third anniversary of Eurojust’s presence in The Hague. 

I can say with confidence that Eurojust has now made a series of advances which will lead to it 

becoming firmly established as a respected organisation assisting the national investigating and 

prosecuting authorities. These advances relate internally to the development of our infrastructure 

and  continually  increasing  caseload,  and  externally  to  the  strengthening  of  relationships  with 

European Union organisations and the completion of formal co-operation agreements with three 

non-EU states.

It  is  especially  pleasing  to  confirm  that  our  core  business,  our  caseload,  is  continuing  to  grow 

rapidly.  In  2005  the  number  of  cases  referred  to  the  College  rose  by  more  than  54%  over 

the  figure  for  2004.  This  was  a  very  significant  increase.  I  feel  the  growth  in  cases  reflects 

the  increased  confidence  which  the  national  investigating  and  prosecuting  authorities  have  in 

Eurojust’s capacity to add value to their work and an increased willingness in the EU states to 

engage  with  Eurojust  and  with  each  other  to  tackle  cross-border  crime.  The  increase  in  2005 

continues the very positive trend which saw a 27% increase in 2004 over the cases referred in 

2003 and a 50% increase in 2003 over 2002.

The proportion of bilateral cases, i.e., cases involving two countries, increased during 2005 but 

it  would  be  misleading  to  suggest  that  these  cases  are  straightforward.  Frequently  bilateral 

cases  are  complex  and  it  is  common  for  additional  countries  to  be  added  to  the  investigations 

or prosecutions. We were also pleased to note that an increasing number of serious cases were 

referred  to  us,  continuing  another  positive  trend  from  earlier  years.  The  number  of  meetings 

to  facilitate  co-operation  and  co-ordinate  action  in  specific  cases  increased  from  52  in  2004  to 

73  in  2005.  I  feel  this  increase,  rather  than  an  unsophisticated  comparison  of  the  numbers  of 

bilateral and multilateral cases, is a more accurate reflection of the complexity of the caseload 

handled by Eurojust. A more detailed analysis of these case referrals and the strategic meetings 

is  contained  in  the  casework  section  of  this  report  together  with  examples  of  cases  for  which 

Eurojust has provided assistance.

4

 
The increase in case referrals is undoubtedly due to the strong links and the trust and confidence 

which  have  developed  between  Eurojust  and  the  national  investigating  and  prosecution 

authorities in the past three years. However the ten National Members whose states joined the 

European Union in May of 2004 have now become fully established in our Unit. Their work has 

also contributed significantly to the efficiency of Eurojust and the number of case referrals.

Importantly more cases were referred to Eurojust for assistance at an early stage of international 

investigations.  When  this  happens  Eurojust  can  save  resources  and  add  real  value  for  those 

fighting  international  crime.  We  are  pleased  but  still  not  satisfied  with  these  increases  and 

improvements.

I have said in previous Annual Reports and I remain convinced that, notwithstanding the increased 

number of case referrals, there are more cases which should be referred to Eurojust. The College 

still does not feel that Eurojust’s capacity to deal with casework is being fully exploited. However 

many National Members work alone, without a Deputy or an Assistant to support them. Several 

National  Members  have  a  very  heavy  workload  both  of  cases  in  which  they  are  assisting  their 

own  national  authorities  and  where  they  are  helping  authorities  in  other  Member  States  with 

cases linked to their own state. As Eurojust develops and its caseload increases it is becoming 

clear that some National Members, working alone, do not have the capacity and cannot provide 

a  full  casework  service  to  their  own  domestic  authorities,  to  other  members  of  the  College 

in  their  casework  and  also  play  their  principal  part  as  members  of  the  College  acting  as  the 

management board. I would urge Ministers of Justice and Internal Affairs, Prosecutors General 

or their equivalents to review the needs of their own National Member and to assess whether he 

or she requires support by a Deputy or a Seconded National Expert.

In addition to the increased number of co-ordination meetings on specific cases which we hosted 

in 2005 we continued to hold regular strategic meetings on significant types of serious organised 

crime investigations and prosecutions. The topics covered to date have included terrorist activity, 

the  trafficking  of  human  beings,  drug  trafficking  issues,  relations  with  Liaison  Magistrates, 

counterfeiting, and money laundering and asset restraint and confiscation.

The dreadful terrorist incidents in July in London ensured that terrorism remains a top priority for 

Eurojust. We held a number of successful meetings for terrorism investigators and prosecutors 

from the EU Member States in The Hague and elsewhere during 2005. A notable feature of this 

work  is  that  we  are  linking  more  regularly  with  terrorism  investigators  and  prosecutors  from 

55

non-EU states and we anticipate that this trend will continue in the months and years ahead. In 

at  least  one  multinational  meeting  we  facilitated,  contributions  resulted  in  a  potential  terrorist 

attack being thwarted.

In addition to these strategic meetings we held our annual seminar for practitioners on 17 and 

18 May in Budapest to continue the work on practical problems related to the functioning of the 

European Arrest Warrant and follow up the initial strategic meeting held in October 2004.

We have continued to develop our links with other EU bodies. Our relationship with Europol and 

its  new  Director  continues  to  strengthen.  However  there  are  some  improvements  which  could 

be made to the structure of Europol’s decision-making process which we feel would undoubtedly 

allow our co-operation to be more fruitful. Although there are still many potential opportunities 

to be exploited, our relationship with OLAF improved considerably during in 2005.

We  have  mentioned  in  the  last  two  Annual  Reports  that  some  Member  States  have  not  yet 

changed  their  legislation  to  implement  the  Eurojust  Decision.  Sadly  Cyprus,  Spain  and  Greece 

still have not implemented the Eurojust Decision in their legislation. The deadline was September 

2003. We hope that implementation will take place in 2006.

Data  protection  linked  to  effective  case  management  remains  a  high  priority.  Our  Case 

Management System (CMS) is now fully operational. During the year we completed the installation 

of our crucially important secure network for internal communication. We also completed work on 

the E-POC II Project for a feasibility study for potential solutions to allow secure communication 

with  our  national  competent  authorities  and  other  partners  so  that  National  Members  can 

electronically transmit and receive sensitive information by secure means. The early and effective 

implementation of this system will be a key factor in Eurojust’s future success. We hope approval 

will  be  given  to  take  this  work  forward  in  2006  as  the  E-POC  III  Project  and  so  build  on  the 

earlier work.

Our  relations  with  non-EU  states  have  developed  considerably  during  2005.  On  28  April  2005 

Eurojust  completed  its  first  formal  co-operation  arrangements  with  a  non-EU  state  when  the 

agreement  with  Norway  was  signed  in  Oslo.  We  are  very  pleased  that,  under  the  terms  of 

the  agreement,  the  Norwegian  Prosecution  Service  appointed  Knut  Kallerud  as  a  Norwegian 

Liaison  Prosecutor  based  at  Eurojust.  On  2  December  2005  two  additional  formal  co-operation 

agreements  were  signed,  with  Romania  and  with  Iceland.  We  are  sure  these  agreements  will 

66

build on the excellent informal relationships we have enjoyed with both countries, and especially 

with  Romania.  We  see  the  signature  of  the  Romanian  agreement  as  a  natural  step  towards 

their  accession  to  the  EU.  In  2005  we  began  formal  negotiations  for  an  agreement  with  the 

United States of America and with Switzerland. We have also held informal discussions with the 

Russian Federation and Ukraine and we expect further positive developments in the next twelve 

months.

Eurojust’s infrastructure has continued to develop. By the end of December 2005 the organisation 

had grown to 25 National Members and their Assistants supported by the Administrative Director 

and 70 administrative staff. I feel we have made good progress but there is more that can be done. 

We  will  continue  to  develop  our  infrastructure  and  our  capacity  to  assist  national  investigators 

and  prosecutors  in  order  to  build  our  profile  within  the  EU  and  also  externally  to  develop  our 

capacity to act as a gateway for investigators and prosecutors from outside the EU.

We  are  particularly  keen  to  enhance  our  ability  to  provide  legal  advice  and  support  for 

practitioners,  including  good  practice  guidance,  on  all  the  legal  aspects  of  investigations  and 

prosecutions of serious organised cross-border crime. We are also anxious to continue our input 

into the proposals by the European Commission and others for more effective laws, procedures 

and processes in the EU area of freedom, security and justice.

In December 2005 we made long-awaited and important progress with the Dutch authorities to 

confirm and consolidate our position and status in The Hague. We concluded lengthy negotiations 

with  the  Dutch  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  on  the  terms  of  our  Seat  Agreement  and  separately 

with the Dutch Government Property Agency (Rijksgebouwendienst) to secure a Lease Agreement 

until 2012 for our premises in The Hague.

My  three-year  term  as  President  of  the  College,  which  passed  quickly,  came  to  an  end  in  the 

middle of the year. It proved to be a very challenging and enjoyable period and so I decided to 

offer  myself  as  a  candidate  for  a  second  term.  I  was  greatly  honoured  and  delighted  that  my 

colleagues re-elected me for a second term.

During 2005 three National Members left Eurojust. We were very sorry to bid farewell to Barbara 

Brezigar,  Stavroula  Koutoulakou  and  Jerzy  Iwanicki,  respectively  the  National  Members  for 

Slovenia, Greece and Poland. I would like to thank them all for the significant contributions they 

made to the development and enlargement of Eurojust. Stavroula returned to duties as a senior 

77

public prosecutor in Athens. Jerzy has returned to work in the Polish Ministry of Justice where 

we hope full use will be made of the experience he gained at Eurojust. We were delighted that 

Barbara was appointed the Prosecutor General of Slovenia. We wish them every success in their 

new  roles.  We  welcomed  their  replacements  into  the  College:  Malči  Gabrijelčič  from  Slovenia, 

Lampros Patsavellas from Greece and Mariusz Skowroński from Poland.

In  2005  Donatella  Frendo  Dimech  was  promoted  from  Deputy  National  Member  to  National 

Member for Malta, ensuring that Malta was represented regularly at meetings of the College.

I should be grateful if this report could be circulated to all investigators and prosecutors who have 

responsibility for, or an interest in, the fight against serious organised cross-border crime.

MICHAEL G KENNEDY

President of the College

January 2006

8

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9

1   T H E   S T R U C T U R E   A N D   D E V E L O P M E N T 

O F   E U R O J U S T

Introduction

The College of Eurojust is composed of 25 National Members, one seconded from each Member 

State, being a prosecutor, judge or police officer of similar competence.

Several  Member  States  have  appointed  Assistants  to  support  their  National  Members.  In  2005 

15 Assistants were based in The Hague with their National Members. Four Member States have 

appointed Assistants who are based in their home countries. Those Assistants who are not based 

with us permanently come to The Hague to deputise for their National Members or to do other 

work when so required. The amount of work of the National Members has increased and several 

have asked for an additional Assistant or Seconded National Expert to support them.

The College is supported in its work by administrative staff, led by the Administrative Director. 

The structure and responsibilities of these personnel are described in Chapter 6 of this report.

A New Working Structure for Eurojust

One of Eurojust’s objectives for 2005 was to establish and implement a new working structure of 21 

teams to seek to gain all the possible advantages which were available following the enlargement 

of the European Union. We also agreed to review the effectiveness of these arrangements after 

a suitable period. The team structure was implemented and became operational during the early 

part  of  2005.  The  structure  worked  quite  well  in  practice  and  much  better  than  the  previous 

arrangements as it allowed members of the College to work together in small groups on specific 

topics and issues supported, where appropriate, by members of the administration.

One of the problems which did arise for some National Members was that the increased number 

of  teams  meant  they  were  committed  to  attend  many  meetings  each  week.  We  discussed 

this  during  our  planning  event  in  October  and  agreed  to  reduce  the  number  of  teams  to  14. 

We  agreed  to  merge  some  of  the  teams,  removing  any  overlapping  and  potential  duplication. 

However we decided to preserve some of the smaller teams to maintain our focus on developing 

and  improving  important  partnerships,  for  example  with  the  EJN  and  OLAF.  The  new  structure 

was discussed and agreed by the College in December. We want to ensure that the teams remain 

as strong as possible, drawing on the personal experience within the College whilst also retaining 

10
10

benefits  of  continuity  of  membership.  We  anticipate  that  the  reallocation  of  National  Members 

to  the  new  teams  will  be  completed  early  in  2006.  In  the  meantime  the  "old"  team  structure 

continues to operate.

Data Protection, the E-POC Project and 

the Eurojust Case Management System (CMS)

The  rules  of  procedure  on  the  processing  and  protection  of  personal  data  at  Eurojust  were 

adopted by the Council on 24 February 2005. These rules oblige Eurojust to create an automated 

case management system (CMS).The CMS is to be used by the National Members when dealing 

with  case-related  activities,  and  includes  the  temporary  work  files  and  index  defined  in  the 

Eurojust Decision.

The parallel development of the data protection rules and the E-POC Project has proven to be a 

win-win situation. It allowed Eurojust to ensure full compatibility of the rules and the technical 

requirements of the CMS.

In  2005  the  EPOC-II  Project  was  launched  as  a  follow-up  to  the  2004  E-POC  Project  which 

produced the first provisional version of Eurojust’s CMS.  Eurojust became a full partner for this 

EU-funded project under the AGIS Programme, which also includes the Italian, French, Slovenian 

and Romanian Ministries of Justice. The project produced two further versions of the CMS, the 

tool used by National Members and staff to manage casework. The first, in July, concentrated on 

the implementation and automation of many of the requirements of the Eurojust data protection 

rules.

The CMS included the following capabilities: data subjects’ rights management, procedure for the 

registration of sensitive data, processing of personal data in the index, automatic notifications 

and log file review possibility by the Data Protection Officer (DPO) and monitoring in respect of 

data time limits.

The second version, which became effective in November, contains new features to support the 

investigation of terrorism, drug trafficking and trafficking in human beings cases. It also supports 

Eurojust’s responsibilities in relation to the European Arrest Warrant, advanced mechanisms to 

11

recognise links between different cases and advanced statistical reports. In addition, it provides 

a feasibility study to enable secure data exchange between Eurojust and national authorities.

The project concluded with a dissemination meeting in Rome in December, where invitees from 

all 25 Member States were shown the potential advantages of a common approach to facilitate 

the  exchange  of  information  between  the  National  Members  and  their  respective  national 

authorities.

The results of pilot checks carried out by the DPO in October 2005, and the first inspection by 

the Joint Supervisory Body in November 2005, underlined the importance of an extensive use 

of the CMS to ensure compliance with the data protection rules and to fully benefit from all its 

capabilities.

12

1313

2   L E G A L   E N V I R O N M E N T   A N D   P A R T N E R S

Introduction

Eurojust’s  role  as  supporter  and  facilitator  of  cross-border  co-operation  and  co-ordination 

between the national investigators and prosecutors in the Member States makes the Unit a key 

player in strengthening the EU area of freedom, security and justice. The Unit is now frequently 

consulted or invited to meetings to give its views about issues on which its expertise is beneficial 

(conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  draft  framework  decision  on  organised  crime,  evaluation  of  the  EAW, 

JITs  Network,  fight  against  terrorism,  etc.).  Some  invitations  are  now  established  on  a  regular 

basis,  for  instance  by  the  Council  of  Ministers,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Multidisciplinary 

Group on Organised Crime (MDG) and the European Police Chiefs Task Force. These are excellent 

opportunities for Eurojust to express its views drawing on its practical experience and for the Unit 

to hear information on the current concerns and issues affecting the European institutions.

This sharing of information is also the aim of other meetings held on Eurojust’s premises every 

two  months  with  representatives  from  the  Council  Secretariat  and  the  Commission.  Since 

September  2005  invitations  to  these  meetings  have  been  extended  to  representatives  of  the 

current  EU  Presidency  and  to  the  two  following  Presidencies,  allowing  for  continuity  in  the 

establishment of useful contacts and the exchange of information.

The Eurojust team structure initiated in the beginning of 2005 has aided in the establishment of 

contacts  with  other  European  agencies  and  institutions,  and  the  enhancement  of  relationships 

between them and Eurojust.

On  19  October  Eurojust  was  delighted  to  welcome  Mr  Frattini,  Vice-President  of  the  European 

Commission responsible for the issues of freedom, security and justice and greatly appreciated 

his offer to reinforce the collaboration between Eurojust and the Commission. The Brussels Team 

is responsible for the co-ordination and organisation of many of the above activities.

Implementation of the Eurojust Decision

Eurojust is now established as a key player in the EU area of freedom, security and justice. This 

status is acknowledged in many European papers and documents such as The Hague Programme. 

However Member States do not always implement the decisions taken in Brussels into domestic 

law  within  a  reasonable  time.  Those  delays  and  minimum  implementation  standards  are  a 

concern for Eurojust and have consequences for our daily work.

14
14

It is, however, pleasing that Luxembourg and Italy have now implemented the Eurojust Decision 

and that Malta is represented regularly in the College. We hope that the Eurojust Decision will 

also be implemented as soon as possible in Cyprus, Greece and Spain. We stressed in the 2004 

Annual Report that the absence of implementation restricts the capacity of the relevant National 

Members to be fully effective and work to maximum effect with their national authorities. That, 

in turn, restricts the activity of the entire Unit. It is disappointing that some National Members 

are not given sufficient support by their home authorities to allow them to establish a permanent 

residence  in  The  Hague.  For  example,  the  Lithuanian  and  Polish  National  Members  have  been 

living in hotels since 1 May 2004.

Implementation of the Eurojust Decision is, however, not the end of the road. What must also 

be considered is the extent of powers granted to each National Member (see Members’ Powers 

below). The Eurojust Decision can be implemented at a basic level, giving the National Member 

the  power  to  assist  and  support  MLA  requests  and  to  co-ordinate  investigations.  The  Decision 

can  also  provide  more  powers  in  cases  of  emergency  or,  for  instance,  to  support  controlled 

deliveries  or  undercover  operations.  It  is  clear  that  the  overall  strength  of  Eurojust  is  closely 

linked to the powers of the National Members granted by their home countries.

Another consideration that must be stressed is the importance of the establishment of national 

desks whose size and level of authority in the domestic hierarchy allows for the optimal treatment 

of many complex cases. That growth in a unit that is still very young must continue until it is 

clear that each national desk is in a position to do its job in the best way possible to fight against 

crime in the relevant country. The nomination of national correspondents or of Assistants located 

in  each  Member  State  would  be  of  great  help  in  facilitating  the  work  of  Eurojust  with  judges 

and  prosecutors  at  home.  There  would  also  be  the  obvious  benefit  of  improved  co-ordination 

amongst the National Members.

Implementation of the Key JHA Instruments

Eurojust has emphasized in previous Annual Reports the importance of the speedy and effective 

implementation  of  the  legal  instruments  to  improve  judicial  co-operation  in  criminal  matters. 

15
15

The lack of implementation, or the lack of full implementation, increases differences between the 

Member States and has consequences for the work of National Members, in particular by creating 

difficulties and risks that undermine their capacity to co-ordinate operations effectively.

A review of the current state of implementation in Member States reveals that some important 

instruments have not been fully implemented in all Member States within the initial deadline set 

for the implementation of the instrument. Several have not even been implemented within the 

deadline  set  by  the  Declaration  of  the  European  Council  made  after  the  Madrid  bomb  attacks. 

Some examples are given below:

•   Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  Arrest  Warrant,  deadline  set 

by the Declaration of the European Council June 2004:

  GERMANY and CYPRUS are not able to execute European Arrest Warrants against 

their own nationals.

•   Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  Joint  Investigation  Teams,  deadline  set  by 

the Declaration of the European Council June 2004:

  GREECE,  ITALY  and  LUXEMBOURG  have  not  implemented  the  Framework 

Decision.

•   Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  Combating  Terrorism,  deadline  set  by  the 

Declaration of the European Council June 2004:

LITHUANIA and CYPRUS have not implemented the Framework Decision.

•   Framework  Decision  of  26  June  2001  on  Money  Laundering,  the  Identification, 

Tracing, Freezing, Seizing and Confiscation of Instrumentalities and the Proceeds of 

Crime, deadline set by the Declaration of the European Council June 2004:

  GREECE and LUXEMBOURG have not implemented the Framework Decision.

•   Convention  of  29  May  2000  on  Mutual  Assistance  in  Criminal  Matters  between 

the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union,  deadline  set  by  the  Declaration  of  the 

European Council December 2004:

  CZECH REPUBLIC, GREECE, IRELAND, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, MALTA and SLOVAK 

REPUBLIC have not ratified the Convention.

16
16

 
•   Protocol  of  16  October  2001  to  the  Convention  on  Mutual  Assistance  in  Criminal 

Matters  between  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union,  deadline  set  by  the 

Declaration of the European Council December 2004:

ESTONIA,  GREECE,  IRELAND,  ITALY,  LUXEMBOURG,  MALTA,  PORTUGAL  and 

SLOVAK REPUBLIC have not ratified the Protocol.

•   Framework  Decision  of  22  July  2003  on  the  Execution  of  Orders  Freezing  Property 

or  Evidence,  initial  deadline  August  2005,  deadline  set  by  the  Declaration  of  the 

European Council December 2004:

  BELGIUM,  CZECH  REPUBLIC,  GERMANY,  ESTONIA,  SPAIN,  GREECE,  IRELAND, 

ITALY, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MALTA, PORTUGAL, SLOVENIA and UK 

have not implemented the Framework Decision.

The European Judicial Network (EJN) and Liaison Magistrates

The  European  Judicial  Network  &  Liaison  Magistrates  Team  (EJN-LM  Team)  was  set  up  by  the 

College following the Eurojust planning event of 2004.

Objectives for 2005

The  year  2005  was  the  first  year  of  the  team’s  work.  Its  objectives  were  (1)  to  establish  an 

appropriate institutional link and, moreover, a communication channel between the EJN members, 

their  Secretariat  and  Liaison  Magistrates  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  College  of  Eurojust  on  the 

other  hand;  (2)  to  identify  practical  means  for  the  improvement  of  co-operation  between  the 

EJN, the Liaison Magistrates and Eurojust, in order to increase their efficiency, avoid duplication 

of work and overlapping commitments in cases; and (3) to build up effective complementarity 

between EJN members, the Liaison Magistrates and Eurojust.

Achievements in 2005

The  EJN-LM  Team  met  eight  times  in  2005  in  order  to  implement  these  objectives,  achieving 

three major goals.

•   Regular participation of team members in the EJN meetings, with particular attention 

paid to the two EJN plenary sessions in Luxemburg (June) and Edinburgh (December). 

17
17

 
These opportunities were used to enhance the relationship between Eurojust and the 

EJN  and  to  provide  permanent  information  about  progress  made  by  Eurojust  in  its 

operational and administrative activities. In fact, the team has become a permanent 

"hyphen" between the EJN, its Secretariat and the Eurojust College.

•   On  14  November  2005  a  meeting  was  held  at  the  Eurojust  premises,  organised  by 

the  EJN-LM  Team,  for  all  Liaison  Magistrates  of  the  EU  Member  States,  including 

representatives of the EJN from the Troika Member States. This meeting was a follow-

up to the previous encounters of March 2002 in Brussels, and July 2004 in The Hague. 

The  meeting’s  participants  were  able  to  share  their  experiences  in  co-operation  at 

the  bilateral  level  and  the  Eurojust  experience  at  the  multilateral  level,  especially 

since the EU’s enlargement in May 2004. The Liaison Magistrates were provided with 

an update of Eurojust’s activities, and also discussed issues relating to cross-border 

investigations and prosecutions, with special focus on the assessment of the respective 

roles  and  strategies  to  improve  the  support  for  national  authorities  in  co-ordinating 

action against international organised crime. The meeting was attended by 18 of 21 

EU  Liaison  Magistrates,  including  the  Norwegian  Liaison  Prosecutor  to  Eurojust,  as 

well  as  three  French  Liaison  Magistrates  and  one  Spanish  Liaison  Magistrate  posted 

outside of the EU (in Canada, in the Russian Federation and in Morocco).

•   A  joint  EJN-Eurojust  promotional  brochure  was  the  third  activity  undertaken  by  the 

team  in  2005.  The  purpose  of  this  brochure  is  twofold:  a  joint  leaflet  at  the  first 

stage,  especially  designed  for  practitioners,  giving  some  basic  information  about 

the  respective  tasks  and  competences  of  the  EJN  and  Eurojust.  This  leaflet  will  be 

available as a brochure, downloadable from both websites. A future development of 

the  brochure  will  include  short  presentations  on  Europol  and  OLAF.  A  version  about 

the EJN was drafted by end of spring 2005, and a final draft of the Eurojust version 

was agreed by the College in December 2005. The final joint version will be launched 

in the early weeks of 2006. Cross-links have already been installed on the EJN and 

Eurojust websites, which also include links to Europol and OLAF.

Europol

During 2005 Eurojust’s Europol Team worked with Europol to implement the agreement that was 

signed by the two organisations in 2004.

18
18

A  special  joint  committee,  the  steering  committee,  was  established  and  met  several  times  on 

general co-operation issues. The Director of Europol and the President of the College of Eurojust 

have also met regularly throughout the year.

An  increasing  amount  of  information  has  been  exchanged  between  the  two  organisations  via 

specially  designated  contact  points.  To  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  two 

bodies we are working on establishing a secure IT connection. Unfortunately this work has not 

progressed  as  quickly  as  we  would  have  hoped  but  we  expect  to  find  a  solution  acceptable  to 

both parties in the first half of 2006.

From Europol’s point of view, the information exchange with Eurojust was as follows:

 Requests sent by Europol to Eurojust: 

 Answers received by Europol from Eurojust: 

 Requests received by Europol from Eurojust: 

 Answers sent by Europol to Eurojust: 

Total: 

2004 

0 

0 

8 

4 

12 

2005

1

1

64

52

118

A  joint  evaluation  report  of  the  co-operation  between  the  two  organisations  during  2005  was 

made.  One  of  the  recommendations  was  that  Eurojust  should  encourage  Member  States  to 

consider  inviting  Eurojust  National  Members  to  participate  in  Analytical  Work  Files.  The  report 

also  recommends  exploring  how  both  organisations  can  be  involved  in  each  other’s  planning 

activities.

Eurojust and Europol are working together on a project on Joint Investigation Teams. The first 

step, which is almost completed, has been to create a guide on the Member States’ legislation 

on JITs. In November 2005 Eurojust and Europol together hosted the first meeting for the JIT 

experts appointed by the 25 Member States. Over 90 people attended.

Eurojust  and  Europol  have  attended  and  given  presentations  in  a  number  of  strategic  and 

operational  meetings  hosted  by  each  other’s  organisation.  Eurojust  and  Europol  have  also  co-

operated on a number of operational cases concerning, for example, terrorism, drug trafficking, 

trafficking in human beings, child pornography, counterfeiting currency and fraud. During 2005 

Eurojust  was  involved  in  co-ordinating  cases  connected  to  8  of  17  Analytical  Work  Files  in 

1919

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europol.  However,  Europol’s  legal  framework  does  not  allow  Eurojust  to  co-operate  as  closely 

with Europol as is desired. It is in the common interest of both organisations to achieve a closer 

co-operation  in  order  to  operate  more  effectively  to  combat  serious  cross-border  organised 

crime. We hope the barriers to closer co-operation can be removed quickly.

Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) and the November Seminar

The Framework Decision on Joint Investigation Teams of 13 June 2002 has not been implemented 

in all Member States. The initiative to designate national experts on Joint Investigation Teams 

was proposed in April 2005 by the Luxembourg Presidency to encourage the use of JITs.

Subsequently in July 2005 it was agreed that an informal JITs Experts Informal Network would 

be established without an overly bureaucratic structure, able to meet collectively or in smaller 

groups; and meetings should be organised, perhaps at Eurojust or Europol.

The JITs Network should provide assistance with the following: (a) to identify the reasons why 

JITs  are  still  not  widely  used  (lack  of  knowledge  among  practitioners,  problems  of  resources, 

legislative difficulties, bureaucratic barriers, etc.), (b) to exchange relevant information on the 

practical issues linked to the setting up and functioning of JITs in all Member States, (c) to share 

best practice, and (d) to liaise with other national experts and organisations.

All Member States have designated their experts, as have OLAF, Europol and Eurojust.

The November Seminar

On  22  and  23  November,  Eurojust  and  Europol  convened  the  first  meeting  of  the  Network  of 

National  Experts  on  JITs,  hosted  at  Eurojust’s  premises.  It  was  attended  by  experts  from  22 

Member States, from OLAF, Eurojust and Europol, representatives from the General Secretariat 

of the Council and from the Commission.

A number of presentations were made and there were discussions, partly in workshops, where 

participants  examined  the  following  issues:  mission  and  objectives  of  the  Network  of  Experts 

20
20

and of the experts; the interaction of international bodies such as Eurojust, Europol and OLAF; 

and the structure, working methods and tools of the Network.

A  very  interesting  portion  of  the  meeting  was  devoted  to  presentations  made  by  Spanish, 

French, UK and Dutch experts on existing JITs created on the basis of the Framework Decision. 

The  cases  explained  concerned  trans-national  investigations  on  drug  trafficking  and  terrorism. 

The experts gave an overview of the practice and of the problems encountered by highlighting 

some aspects which, according to their experience, should be taken into account when setting 

up JITs. These include the importance of pre-agreement negotiations which should focus on all 

the details, the need for a careful selection of investigations, and linguistic and other practical 

problems concerning the law enforcement officers involved in the functioning of a JIT.

The  Legal  Services  of  Europol  and  Eurojust  also  reported  on  the  progress  they  had  made  in 

drafting a manual of the national legislation applicable to JITs in all Member States.

Those present agreed on a number of conclusions, mainly concerning their tasks and objectives. 

These conclusions, and the results of the workshops, are set out in Council Document 15277/05, 

issued on 2 December 2005. The feedback received from the participants was extremely posi-

tive.

The participants agreed to organise future meetings on an ad hoc basis, and expressed the wish 

to continue to focus on practical issues. Europol has agreed to host the next meeting, which will 

be organised on the same basis and in co-operation with Eurojust.

Relationship with OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office)

The  relationship  between  Eurojust  and  OLAF  developed  significantly  during  2005.  The  OLAF 

Team was established comprising four members of the College, and began working in January 

2005. Since then the team has met with OLAF’s Magistrates Unit on a bi-monthly basis.

During  these  meetings,  Eurojust  was  provided  with  case  summaries  of  eleven  OLAF  cases. 

National  Members  from  France,  Germany,  Spain,  Italy  and  Ireland,  the  lead  countries  in  the 

OLAF cases, reported on the progress of these investigations to the College. However, in seven of 

21
21

these cases, National Members reported that OLAF did not refer the cases to Eurojust in sufficient 

time for Eurojust to add any value.

A  number  of  important  steps,  suggested  in  the  guidelines  for  implementation  of  the  joint 

Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2003, have been achieved:

•   Transmission of cases from OLAF to Eurojust has begun.

•   In  October  2005  the  first  exchange  visit  took  place,  when  four  National  Members 

visited  OLAF  for  two  days.  There  were  meetings  and  exchanges  of  experience 

from  officials  from  the  three  directorates  of  OLAF,  including  the  investigations  and 

operations directorate, and attendance at a meeting of the Executive Board in respect 

of  casework.  The  visit  was  an  opportunity  not  only  to  raise  awareness,  but  also  to 

continue to enhance mutual trust and confidence.

Joint  participation  in  conferences  and  seminars  has  increased.  Eurojust  co-chaired  a  morning 

session of the Third EU Conference of Fraud Prosecutors organised by OLAF in November 2005. 

OLAF was invited to attend Eurojust’s strategic meeting on money laundering held in November 

2005.

Eurojust  and  OLAF  are  working  on  joint  marketing  material,  and  have  included  links  to  each 

other’s websites.

Eurojust hosted two important OLAF-related visits during the year. In April, Mr. Siim Kallas, Vice-

President  and  Commissioner,  visited,  resulting  in  a  fruitful  meeting  for  both  organisations.  In 

December 2005, the Director of OLAF, Mr. Franz-Hermann Brüner, visited Eurojust and met with 

the  President  and  the  OLAF  Team.  Objectives  for  future  work,  including  progress  on  a  formal 

co-operation  agreement,  were  agreed.  An  overview  of  progress  in  OLAF  cases  exchanged  with 

Eurojust National Members in 2005 was passed to the OLAF Magistrates Unit at the meeting. The 

OLAF Team plans to report to the College on progress by March 2006.

The Council’s conclusions to Eurojust’s Annual Report 2004 called on Eurojust and the Commission 

(OLAF)  to  examine  legal  requirements  permitting  rapid  arrangements  for  the  exchange  of 

personal data. Both organisations are attempting to comply as quickly as possible. We hope that 

negotiations for a formal agreement will begin in early 2006.

22

Whilst there have been significant improvements in Eurojust’s relations with OLAF during 2005, 

there is still a good deal to achieve to ensure that both organisations work together effectively 

to gain the maximum benefit from their powers, their capacity and their experience.

EU Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator

Acting as an official EU link at a high level with Third States and reporting directly to the Council, 

Mr  Gijs  de  Vries  certainly  had  a  significant  impact  on  the  co-ordination  of  the  work  done  by 

different co-players in the field of counter-terrorism.

Mr  de  Vries  visited  Eurojust  and  addressed  the  College  on  10  November  2005.  The  Terrorism 

Team had the opportunity to give an overview of its activities. The team also clarified the state 

of play as regards the Council Decision of 19 December 2002 and the new Council Decision of 

20 September 2005.

Mr  de  Vries  confirmed  his  commitment  to  assist  Eurojust  at  a  political  level,  by  helping  to 

streamline  the  different  legislative  initiatives  in  the  field  of  terrorism  and  by  systematically 

inviting the concerned Member States to update their respective legislations related to terrorism. 

This joint effort will certainly lead to more success and, we sincerely hope, to a gradual reduction 

in the risk of terrorist attacks in Europe.

The International Association of Prosecutors (IAP)

Eurojust’s  close  links  to  the  IAP  continued  during  2005.  In  March  part  of  the  IAP  European 

regional training conference, which has become an annual event in the IAP’s calendar, took place 

in  Eurojust.  The  conference  brought  together  over  50  junior  prosecutors  from  many  European 

countries inside and outside the EU. It provided an excellent opportunity for Eurojust to reach 

out  to  prosecutors  whose  normal  work  might  not  bring  them  in  contact  with  our  organisation. 

In August several National Members took part in the IAP Annual Conference hosted this year in 

Europe by the Danish Prosecution Service in Copenhagen with the theme of witnesses, experts 

and victims.

23

 
Eurojustice

In October the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Portugal invited Eurojust to attend the 8th 

Annual Eurojustice Conference in Lisbon. This meeting brought together the Prosecutors General 

from the European Union Member States and some third countries. The conference conclusions 

stressed the importance of Eurojust and the need to utilise its potential to co-ordinate between 

competent authorities in the fight against trans-national crime.

The European Constitution

The  European  Constitution,  as  currently  drafted,  includes  provisions  that  would  enhance  and 

strengthen the fight against organised crime and terrorism. Eurojust would, for instance, assuming 

the appropriate European legislation is instituted, have the power to initiate investigations and 

it  could,  by  unanimous  decision  of  the  Member  States,  be  established  as  the  European  Public 

Prosecutor  entrusted  with  combating  fraud  against  the  European  budget  and,  more  generally, 

entrusted  with  combating  serious  crime.  Other  provisions  aim  at  better  harmonisation  of  the 

criminal law, especially in the field of Euro crimes as well as dealing with procedural issues such 

as the exchange of evidence and the treatment of defendants and victims.

On the basis of its practical experience, Eurojust considers that harmonising the law between the 

different Member States and strengthening its powers could greatly improve the effectiveness of 

the EU area of freedom, security and justice. The full involvement of each National Member and 

Assistant in trans-national investigations would undoubtedly be easier if some of the provisions 

of the draft Constitution enter into force.

Whatever the future of the constitutional treaty, it is important to allow full consideration of the 

principles already expressed by the current provisions and the referenda. But, in particular, the 

principle of mutual recognition has proved to be very effective through the implementation of the 

Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant and the freezing of assets.

The  suggestion  to  establish  a  committee  for  internal  security  (High  Level  Co-ordination 

Committee, formerly COSI), in which relevant European institutions and agencies can exchange 

information  and  elaborate  strategies  against  crime  and  support  security  in  Europe,  should  be 

24

encouraged. Eurojust was pleased to participate in the first meeting in May 2005 and feels that 

this committee has considerable potential.

The  citizens  of  the  Member  States  expect  improvements  in  the  fight  against  serious  crime  at 

the European level. Eurojust is devoted to improving the framework of the current provisions to 

better achieve its own aims and objectives.

Members’ Powers

During its meeting on 2 December 2004, the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs 

invited Eurojust to evaluate its experience relating to the nature and extent of the judicial powers 

of  its  National  Members,  and  to  report  to  the  Council  by  mid-2005.  The  Council  asked  for  the 

report to include, where necessary, recommendations for possible improvements.

The  question  of  Members’  powers  is  central  to  Eurojust’s  casework  and  so  we  welcomed  the 

opportunity to address and comment upon this important question. The College made an analysis 

and evaluation of the powers in relation to Article 9(3) of the Eurojust Decision, but also taking 

into consideration the powers needed for the performance of the tasks mentioned in Article 6.

In the answer sent to the Council in July 2005, the College acknowledged the obvious potential 

criticism  that  an  evaluation  of  this  nature  is  unscientific  and  subjective  and  that  it  can  only 

reflect  the  experience  gained  by  National  Members  under  the  powers  as  they  currently  stand. 

Furthermore it is very likely that if National Members had more powers, more information and 

more  cases  would  be  referred  to  them.  This  in  itself  would  require  further  powers  to  execute 

these cases satisfactorily. The analysis given may also reflect the fact that many of the National 

Members  are  highly  experienced  prosecutors  and  judges  with  good,  efficient  and  effective 

networks and contacts in their home jurisdictions. By virtue of this fact, their need for powers, 

which  less  experienced  National  Members  might  require  in  order  to  operate  effectively,  will  be 

less obvious.

Bearing these matters in mind, the analysis suggests that only very few National Members have 

experienced real problems because of the absence of specific judicial powers granted either to 

themselves or to the other National Members with whom they work.

25

Even taking that into consideration, a significant number of National Members pointed out powers 

that they believe should be granted to all National Members. Granting these powers would help 

to ensure a baseline of common consistency, allowing the National Members to work together on 

an equal footing, and for them and their national counterparts to have equal expectations and 

hence  the  capacity  to  facilitate  co-ordinated  action  and  to  support  judicial  co-operation  with  a 

level of certainty. Among these basic common powers would be the powers to:

•   Issue requests for mutual legal assistance;

•   Execute requests for mutual legal assistance;

•   Act as central authorities in relation to foreign judicial authorities;

•   Decide upon rather than only recommend steps of mutual assistance, investigations 

and prosecutions;

•   Decide upon and authorise controlled deliveries in urgent cases; and

•   Decide  upon  other  investigative  steps  (e.g.,  interception  of  telecommunications  and 

undercover operations) in urgent cases.

It may seem something of a paradox that even though the National Members have experienced 

few  problems  because  of  a  lack  of  judicial  powers,  we  still  believe  that  more  powers  are 

needed.  However,  this  is  not  the  case.  As  mentioned  above  an  evaluation  of  this  nature  will 

only reflect the experience we have gained with the powers as they currently stand. It may well 

be that further powers will strengthen the role of Eurojust, bringing in more case referrals and 

information  concerning  serious  crime  to  Eurojust  for  assistance  through  co-operation  and  co-

ordination between the Member States, and so again make stronger powers necessary.

26

3   C A S E W O R K

Comments on Casework Statistics

In 2005 the College registered 588 cases, including two cases transformed from national cases 

to College cases. This represents an increase of 54% compared to the number of cases handled 

in 2004. This increase is shared by most of the Member States where Eurojust is now becoming 

increasingly well known and well used. Although a good deal of work must still be done, it seems 

that the national authorities are becoming more aware and confident about the real and potential 

added value resulting from Eurojust’s involvement.

As in previous years, the proportion of bilateral cases is still substantial (78%). In order to avoid 

misunderstandings, we think that it is important to mention some significant issues.

When Eurojust refers to bilateral cases, it can, but does not always, mean that, at national level, 

the case involves only two countries. It means that the national authorities need to co-operate 

more closely or to co-ordinate their investigations or prosecution or to solve some problems with 

one country, but the case may concern a number of countries. Sometimes the case is extended 

later to one or more other countries.

Furthermore a bilateral case does not always equate to a simple case. Several National Members 

have  mentioned  that  some  of  their  bilateral  cases  are  very  complex  and  that  Eurojust’s 

involvement  has  been  very  time-consuming  and  crucial  for  improving  the  co-operation  or  co-

ordination of investigations and/or prosecution between the two countries – an effort far beyond 

what can be expected from the EJN contact points.

Finally the added value of Eurojust’s efforts is significant in bilateral cases, sometimes even more 

than in multilateral cases. It is the reason or need for Eurojust’s involvement, rather than the 

bi– or multilateral nature of requests, which should be taken into consideration. In some cases, 

Eurojust is the last hope for prosecutors to obtain the international co-operation they need.

The  comments  concerning  the  two  requests  from  the  College  under  Article  7  are  both  good 

illustrations of this point. For example, the hugely complex Prestige case mainly concerns Spain 

and France.

Following  the  trend  in  the  number  of  cases  registered,  the  number  of  co-ordination  meetings 

also  increased  by  more  than  40%.  The  73  co-ordination  meetings  organised  or  supported  by 

Eurojust took place on our premises (55) or in the Member States (18). The decision on venue 

depended  upon  the  requests  and  needs  of  the  national  authorities  and  also  on  considerations 

28
28

relating to practical support for the meetings. Most of these co-ordination meetings (42) involved 

between  3  and  14  countries.  Cases  concerned  were  mainly  drug  trafficking  (22),  fraud  and/or 

money laundering (20), terrorism (10) and trafficking in human beings (9). Other bodies, such 

as OLAF and Europol, and non-EU Member States, were involved in 13 co-ordination meetings. 

Each  Member  State  has  been  represented  in  at  least  one  co-ordination  meeting.  In  many  of 

these  meetings,  operational  aspects  include  the  formulation  of  a  specific  action  plan  with  the 

execution  of  co-ordinated  measures,  e.g.,  searches  and  seizures  of  evidence  and  arrests.  This 

constitutes  important  added  value  and  allows  national  authorities  to  be  more  ambitious  in 

dealing  with  international  aspects  of  their  cases.  Requests  for  co-ordination,  based  on  Article 

6(c) of the Eurojust Decision, are not systematically followed by co-ordination meetings. In 99 

cases, co-ordination was requested from the start; 14 of these cases also required the National 

Member to ensure the transmission of one or more letters of request in accordance with Article 

6(g) of the Eurojust Decision. Concerning this latter issue it is significant to note that National 

Members have been requested on this basis in 58 cases. In our opinion, this figure also reflects 

an increased level of trust between Eurojust and national authorities.

Criminal  activities  dealt  with  by  Eurojust  follow  a  similar  pattern  as  in  previous  years.  Drug 

trafficking and fraud cases still represent the highest percentage of criminal activities referred 

to  Eurojust.  However  percentages  are  not  very  relevant  data  concerning  criminal  activities. 

Eurojust  registered  36  different  types  of  criminal  activities  in  2005  and  it  is  difficult  to  report 

about each of them. However, we would like to highlight that, in general, referrals for all types 

of  criminal  activities  have  increased,  sometimes  significantly.  For  example,  there  were  19 

trafficking in human beings cases in 2004 and 33 cases in 2005. It should be highlighted that in 

many cases there are subsidiary offences beside the main offence.

These  statistics  reflect  only  our  work  on  cases  registered  about  specific  crimes  referred 

to  Eurojust.  In  addition  National  Members  make  significant  contributions  to  their  national 

authorities, for example by analysing and solving legal issues, providing advice on the handling 

of  requests  for  assistance  or  helping  iron  out  general  problems  between  authorities  in  the 

Member States involved in cross-border co-operation. We will continue working to improve our 

statistics  to  provide  greater  detail  about  the  full  extent  of  National  Members’  involvement  in 

judicial co-operation in Europe.

We hope that the statistics and tables on the following three pages (Figures 1 – 5) and comments 

as well as case illustrations will contribute to a better understanding of College casework.

29
29

Figure 1: Co-ordination meetings

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

18

34

29

24

23

26

32

14

8

6

3

1

1

4

3

4

2

1

8

6

3

2

2

1

BE

CZ

DK

DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

Figure 2: Cases Evolution 2002-2005

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

588

381

300

202

2002

2003

2004

2005

3030

Figure 3: Requesting countries

99

100

18

80

12

60

40

20

0

50

51

43

41

35

38

42

39

40

34

27

23

18

22

17

12

19

20

1617
6

12

26

21 22

23

22

17

14

9

7

7

8

3

1

2

3

1

5

3

15

15

11

8

5

3

BE

CZ

DK

DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

2004

2005

Figure 4: Requested countries

140

120

100

80

136

98

92

57

60

51

59

84

78

64

46

95

80

82

65

40

20

0

28

26

98

1716

12

8

2

25

14

7

1211 8 10

15

1312

12

8

5 4

28

24 23

20

15

12

16

11

8 6 6 8 6 4

BE

CZ

DK

DE

EE

EL

ES

FR

IE

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

2004

2005

3131

Figure 5: Offences

140

120

135

100

120

80

60

40

20

0

92

48

45

43

42

39

35

33

27

26

25

24

g traffickin

g

d
u

erty or 
d fra
g fra
p
n
ainst pro
g a
din
d inclu
dlin
win
g
e a
S
blic g
Crim

o
o

d
u

b 
m
o
d
e

g

erin

ainst life, lim

al fre

n

d
n
u

y la

e
n
o
M

erso
g
e a
or p
Crim

Dru

u
p

er
urd
M

d
u

x fra
Ta

a

n

n in 
nces
nisatio
atio
er offe
Particip
al org
Oth
g in h
a crimin
Traffickin

gs
ein
n b
a
m
u

a

Org

e 
nts
e
m
ocu
d

ery
b
b

ministrativ
d ro
nise
ery of a
Forg

d

Terrrorism

d
u

AT Fra

V

Article 7 of the Eurojust Decision

In 2005 the College acted under the provisions of Article 7(a) for the first time. There were two 

such actions for different purposes.

In  the  first  instance,  the  College  requested  the  Spanish  authorities,  in  accordance  with  Article 

7(a)(i),  to  undertake  an  investigation  and,  if  appropriate,  a  prosecution  concerning  a  fraud 

case, due to the fact that the UK, the other country involved, was not in a position to establish 

jurisdiction in order to prosecute in this case.

In the second instance, in accordance with Article 7 (a)(ii), the College requested the French and 

Spanish competent judicial authorities to accept that the Spanish judicial authorities were better 

placed to handle the totality of the proceedings relating to the shipwreck of the Prestige.

32
32

Each  of  these  requests  included  detailed  reasoning,  in  particular  the  Prestige  case.  Both  took 

into consideration the situation of the victims and the possibility of them exercising their rights 

in a satisfactory manner. However the College considers that further co-operation will be needed 

between the countries involved in order to achieve the final goal. Eurojust has already offered 

to provide any additional support to the national authorities.

Breaches of Time Limits in EAW Cases

In  relation  to  information  provided  last  year,  Eurojust  has  been  notified  of  more  breaches  of 

time limits in EAW cases. Nevertheless, we realise that such notifications are not yet systematic. 

Although National Members remind their national authorities about their responsibility, as stated 

in Article 17(7) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002, they experience great difficulty in 

receiving all the relevant information. We hope that next year all Member States will fulfil their 

obligation and that Eurojust will receive all the information required. Taking into account this last 

comment, the following statistics must be seen as incomplete.

In 2005, 53 breaches of time limits were reported. Reasons were given in 44 cases:

United Kingdom:  

Portugal: 

France:   

Malta: 

Ireland:  

31

 6

 4

 3

 3

Spain: 

Belgium: 

Sweden:  

Italy: 

 2

 2

 1

 1

The  main  reasons  given  by  the  Member  States  referred  to  (a)  proceeding  adjourned  due  to 

pending procedure or sentence being served in the requested country – 13 cases; (b) appeals 

made by the defendants – 12 cases; and (c) additional information requested by the executing 

authority – 11 cases. Moreover, in five cases, executing authorities were not able to surrender 

the suspects due to the fact that two suspects escaped, and three suspects failed to turn up for 

a hearing. In both situations, national authorities issued arrest warrants.

33
33

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  additional  information  requested  by  the  executing  authority  from 

the issuing authority falls into the following categories:

•    Passage of time (3 cases)

•    Chronology of events leading up to the issue of the EAW (1 case)

•    Conduct described in the EAW (3 cases)

•   Non bis in idem (2 cases)

•   Medical treatment (2 cases)

Although  Member  States  must  report  failures  to  meet  EAW  deadlines  to  Eurojust,  we  have  no 

authority to gather data on the number of EAWs issued. Over 2,500 EAWs were issued in 2005. 

Although a lower number than this will have been executed, we do not believe that in only 48 

cases were the time limits for the process to return the fugitive exceeded. However we are very 

disappointed that responses have been received from only seven Member States, rendering the 

value of any comparisons questionable.

Closer examination of the 31 UK cases shows that in over half the cases the delay was as a result 

of either fugitives absconding, or due to the conclusion of current criminal proceedings, or for 

fugitives to serve sentences in the UK. We hope that in future all Member States will provide full 

and detailed reports on the reasons why EAW deadlines have been breached.

Terrorism Team and New Council Decision

The Terrorism Team

The main aims of the Terrorism Team are to:

•    establish a centre of expertise within Eurojust regarding terrorism; 

•   ensure that terrorism co-ordination meetings are well prepared and organised;

•   enhance  the  exchange  of  terrorism-related  information  via  regular  contacts  with 

nominated national correspondents for terrorism;

3434

•   maintain and establish a general database of legal documents related to terrorism;

•   define  a  better  approach  to  the  receipt  and  handling  of  terrorism  information  from 

open and closed sources; and

•   maintain contacts with working parties and meetings in Brussels on these topics.

The  Terrorism  Team  met  almost  every  week  and  continued  to  work  on  the  scoreboard  of 

activities, which was established in 2004.

The five main issues being addressed are:

•   judicial  co-operation:  the  organisation  of  strategic,  operational  and  other  meetings 

related to terrorism and providing support for operational co-ordination meetings on 

terrorist cases;

•   improvement  of  the  interaction  between  counterparts  dealing  with  terrorism 

issues:  to  establish  regular  contacts  with  national  correspondents  for  terrorism, 

with  magistrates,  judges  and  prosecutors  specialising  in  terrorism  or  in  charge  of 

important  terrorist  cases,  with  Europol,  the  EU  Counter-Terrorism  Co-ordinator,  the 

intelligence services and other interested agencies;

•   a feasibility study of a legal database to keep updated an overview of the available 

national,  European  and  international  legal  documents  and  instruments  related  to 

terrorism;

•   establishment of a judicial database on terrorism: this will be based on data collated, 

e.g.,  during  co-ordination  meetings  held  at  Eurojust  and  received  from  the  national 

correspondents for terrorism, and introduction of the capabilities in the CMS; and

•   financing of terrorism: to obtain verification of the practical use and added value of 

existing EU or UN instruments in this area.

The Terrorism Team prepared two important strategic meetings: the first took place in February 

2005 with the United States, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain 

and the UK. The objective was to provide information for further developments and co-operation 

35
35

between  these  countries  in  cases  of  Islamic  extremist  terrorism  linked  to  the  European  Union 

and  North  America  and  to  identify  obstacles  and  lessons  to  be  learned  and  set  guidelines  for 

information  exchange.  The  representatives  from  Member  States  explained  the  state  of  play  of 

their  investigations,  prosecutions  and  proceedings  linked  to  specific  cases.  The  conclusions  of 

this meeting were reported by letter of the President of Eurojust to the President of the Council 

of the European Union and the EU Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator.

The  second  important  meeting  took  place  in  March  2005  aimed  at  ensuring  better  networking 

with national correspondents for terrorism from all 25 Member States and in particular seeking 

to  ensure  the  fullest  compliance  with  the  Council  Decision  of  19  December  2002  on  terrorism 

information exchange. The meeting highlighted that Eurojust did not process sufficient information 

to give an overview of terrorist cases in all Member States. It also showed that several Member 

States  remain  more  confident  with  their  own  networks  and  with  bilateral  methods  than  with 

availing  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  co-operate  through  Eurojust.  The  situation  has  not 

improved  significantly.  Only  a  few  Member  States  exchange  information  on  terrorism  matters 

with Eurojust regularly and in a structured way; some Member States do so in an unstructured 

way. But for the majority it is done only from time to time or not at all. We hope that this will 

change with the implementation of the new Council Decision in mid-2006.

The  percentage  of  terrorist  cases  decreased  during  2005  compared  to  2004  from  7%  to  5%, 

but it is important to note the fact that the quality of the multilateral operational co-ordination 

meetings  related  to  Islamic  extremist  terrorism  increased  considerably.  In  the  course  of  2005 

Eurojust  was  being  informed  about  several  judgements  pronounced  in  the  field  of  terrorism. 

Eurojust had been involved in each of these cases.

The Terrorism Team also launched the initiative of holding tactical meetings on terrorism.

The New Council Decision

A  qualitative  and  quantitative  improvement  in  exchanges  of  information  is  one  of  the  key 

elements  to  strengthen  the  fight  against  terrorism.  Eurojust  welcomes  Council  Decision  2005/

671/JHA  of  20  September  2005  on  the  exchange  of  information  and  co-operation  concerning 

terrorist offences which entered into force on 30 September 2005 and must be implemented by 

the Member States by 30 June 2006. This new instrument, repealing Council Decision 2003/48/

JHA of 19 December 2002 on the implementation of specific measures for police and judicial co-

operation  to  combat  terrorism,  will  considerably  broaden  the  scope  of  information  which  must 

be  transmitted  to  Eurojust.  It  extends  the  responsibility  to  all  stages  of  criminal  proceedings, 

36
36

including convictions, and to all persons, groups or entities investigated, prosecuted or convicted 

of terrorist offences.

Strategic Meetings Introduction

In 2005 Eurojust strengthened the strategic effort against the major forms of serious organised 

crime  by  arranging  seven  strategic  seminars,  compared  to  five  the  previous  year.  Most  of  the 

seminars  were  held  in  our  excellent  facilities  in  The  Hague,  but  seminars  were  also  held  in 

Hungary, Italy and the UK.

The  objectives  of  the  seminars  are  threefold.  First,  to  disseminate  information  on  practical 

prosecutorial  problems,  solutions  and  good  practice  in  these  specific  fields  of  organised  crime 

and to create a forum where practitioners, who encounter these practical questions in their daily 

work, can discuss them directly with their European counterparts. Second, to create networks 

between prosecutors and investigators working in these areas and to create confidence and trust 

between  them  to  ensure  better,  faster  and  more  direct  co-operation  and  co-ordination  in  the 

European countries. Third, to identify possible new cases for co-operation and co-ordination and 

to bring these cases to Eurojust.

Besides the discussions and presentations between practitioners during the strategic seminars, 

the meetings also provide the framework for a number of bilateral and multilateral co-ordination 

meetings, where specific investigations and prosecutions are discussed between the prosecutors, 

the police and others directly engaged in the cases.

The following sections provide short reports on each meeting.

Strategic Meeting on Terrorism

On 9 March 2005 Eurojust organised for the second time in European judicial history a strategic 

meeting reuniting the 25 national correspondents for terrorism.

This strategic meeting was divided into three main sections:

37
37

1.  Application  of  the  Council  Decision  of  19  December  2002  (designation  of  the  national 

correspondents for terrorism and the exchange of information between the national competent 

authorities,  Eurojust  and  Europol)  and  providing  information  about  the  new  Draft  Council 

Decision, enlarging considerably the field of application of the Council Decision of 19 December 

2002.

2. A briefing session was held concerning three projects monitored in close collaboration between 

Eurojust and Europol and asking the national correspondents for terrorism to provide us in due 

time with relevant judicial information:

•   with a view to the establishment of a glossary related to terrorist groups;

•   related to the use of multimedia in all stages of the criminal procedure; and

•   related to the recruitment of terrorists.

3.  Four  workshops  were  organised.  The  objective  was  to  respond  to  a  questionnaire  on  the 

exchange of information (timing, channels and methodology).

Tactical Meeting on Terrorism

To strengthen the case harvesting effort, the Terrorism Team introduced a new concept: tactical 

meetings. Only prosecutors currently engaged in such cases should attend these meetings and 

should  bring  specific  cases  with  them.  Accordingly  not  all  countries  need  to  send  a  delegation 

to these meetings, although all National Members of Eurojust can attend. The objective of the 

meeting is to present and to discuss these cases and related problems. A tactical meeting is held 

only if a sufficient number of cases can be identified.

Eurojust decided to organise a tactical meeting for those Member States most concerned with 

Islamic  extremist  terrorism.  The  main  objective  of  this  meeting  was  to  provide  a  platform  for 

leading  magistrates  dealing  with  cases  in  the  area  of  Islamic  extremist  terrorism  to  discuss 

terrorism-related matters, to exchange information and experiences and to build up a network. 

During  the  first  tactical  meeting  on  terrorism,  arranged  by  Eurojust  in  Italy,  a  number  of 

countries,  notably  France,  pointed  to  actual  concerns  about  individuals  linked  to  or  trained 

in  Iraq  and  coming  back  to  Europe  in  order  to  commit  terrorist  acts.  The  meeting  was  much 

appreciated by the participants and demonstrated the need for continued action in this area.

38
38

As  a  next  step,  Eurojust  was  requested  to  inquire  in  all  Member  States  about  ongoing 

investigations  or  prosecutions  in  this  respect,  to  links  with  other  Member  States  and  the  USA 

and about the desire to have a tactical meeting in Eurojust to co-ordinate activities in the course 

of 2006.

Strategic Meeting on the Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

Eurojust held a meeting for practitioners on the implementation of the EAW in Budapest on 17 

and 18 May 2005. Taking into account the experience gained from the strategic meeting held in 

Prague  in  2004,  Eurojust  focussed  on  the  practical  problems  linked  to  application  of  the  EAW. 

The first half-day was devoted to presentations. Among several interventions, the meeting heard 

about the constitutional cases pending or completed in Germany and Belgium. Two months later 

the German constitutional court rejected the national implementation of the Framework Decision 

on the EAW. All the presentations, workshop conclusions, replies to the questionnaire issued by 

Eurojust, as well as the text of the decision of the German and Polish constitutional courts, are 

to be found on the CD-ROM issued by Eurojust after the seminar. Although the seminar was held 

only seven months after the seminar on the EAW in Prague, Eurojust encountered a significant 

number of practical problems, which were discussed in the workshops. The following issues were 

discussed and conclusions made during the workshops:

Link between EAW and extradition

The Member States apply the EAW within the territory of the European Union; for relations with 

non-EU  countries,  extradition  procedures  are  used.  Nonetheless,  the  extradition  convention  is 

still in force among several Member States. As the Framework Decision cannot itself modify the 

provisions of the international treaty, it is advisable to exclude the application of the Extradition 

Treaty by making notification under Article 28(3) of the European Convention on Extradition.

Application in time

The  EAW  should  be  applicable  regardless  of  the  date  of  commission  of  acts,  except  for  the 

states which made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision (Austria, Italy and 

France). Time limits for execution of the EAW imposed by other states create problems with the 

application of the EAW which must be solved at a practical level on an ad hoc basis with great 

flexibility. However, the national legislators should be aware that restrictive legal requirements 

39
39

do not assist the implementation of the EAW, which should simplify and accelerate procedures 

rather than introduce complications and accentuate national differences.

Grounds for refusal

Many grounds for refusal to execute the EAW were mentioned, among which were: insufficient 

description of facts, lack of complementary information and lack of legislation for execution of the 

penalty for which the EAW had been issued. One issue was common in all groups – translations. 

The  participants  found  it  sometimes  difficult  to  comply  with  the  translation  requirement  in 

the  short  period  of  time  allotted;  the  poor  quality  of  translations  was  also  mentioned.  A  good 

practice  would  be  for  a  Member  State  to  accept  more  than  only  its  own  national  language,  or 

even to accept one common language.

Pending procedures in relation to the constitutionality of the EAW

As  already  mentioned,  presentations  were  made  on  Belgian  and  German  cases.  Additionally, 

in  the  workshop  a  presentation  was  made  about  the  Polish  case.  Participants  asked  about  the 

practice of those states which refused to surrender their own nationals. Should the principle of 

reciprocity apply?

Practical experience with transmission

For  transmission  of  the  EAW,  several  channels  could  be  used  (SIS/Interpol/Liaison  Magistrate/

direct  contact).  All  the  practitioners  should  be  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Member  States  that 

acceded to the EU in 2004, as well as the UK and Ireland, do not have access to SIS. That is 

why  the  Interpol  channel  is  used.  However,  the  Interpol  alert  (with  no  accompanying  EAW)  is 

not  a  valid  reason  for  arrests  in  some  Member  States  (The  Netherlands,  Sweden,  Cyprus  and 

Ireland).

Problems related to surrender

Three major questions were asked about application of Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision: 

what  is  the  legal  basis  for  return  of  prisoners?;  who  is  responsible?;  and  who  covers  the 

expenses?  It  was  concluded  that  the  European  Convention  of  1983  relating  to  transfer  of 

sentenced  persons  is  not  the  most  appropriate  tool,  as  the  consent  of  the  sentenced  person 

is  required.  This  is  why  clear  implementation  in  national  law  is  needed.  There  is  no  system  in 

place  to  inform  the  executing  country  that  the  surrendered  person  was  sentenced  and  should 

40
40

be returned. The concern was expressed that there is no clear regulation covering expenses for 

return of sentenced persons.

Strategic Meeting on Euro Counterfeiting

The growing volume of currency counterfeiting and its Europe-wide impact has become a matter 

of specific concern for Eurojust. Consequently, in June 2005, the Eurojust Counterfeiting Team 

organised a strategic meeting for practitioners dealing with Euro counterfeiting cases.

In  order  to  focus  on  practical  issues,  the  Counterfeiting  Team  reviewed  and  discussed  all 

counterfeiting  cases  with  the  involved  National  Members.  Invited  speakers  from  Europol  and 

the  European  Central  Bank  were  asked  to  prepare  presentations  suggesting  possible  solutions 

to the problems encountered. Another presentation related to a Lithuanian case where the print 

shop  was  located,  more  than  €  8  million  in  counterfeit  currency  was  confiscated  and  suspects 

were arrested.

More  than  60  participants  attended  the  meeting  and  the  following  issues  and  barriers  were 

discussed:

1.  The  number  of  Euro  counterfeiting  cases  in  Member  States  is  increasing  and  the  quality  of 

counterfeit  currency  is  improving,  but  the  number  of  cases  referred  to  Eurojust  remains  the 

same.

2.  Euro  counterfeiting  from  production  to  distribution  is  always  a  cross-border  crime.  That  is 

why investigations must focus not only on the print shop or distributors, but also and especially 

on  the  criminal  networks.  The  need  for  common  training,  the  timely  exchange  of  information, 

an  effective  early  warning  system  and  co-ordination  of  investigative  actions  were  mentioned 

as  priorities  by  all  participants.  Co-operation  has  not  been  effective  enough:  the  exchange  of 

information  is  slow  and  the  lack  of  co-ordination  at  national  level  has  direct  repercussions  at 

EU level.

3. It was stressed that all seized counterfeit Euros must be sent to the National Analysis Centres 

situated in the national banks of the Member States, information must be transmitted to Europol, 

and cross-border cases must be referred to Eurojust.

41
41

The  strategic  meeting  also  provided  the  framework  for  a  number  of  bilateral  and  multilateral 

co-ordination meetings dealing with specific cases. One of them was devoted to the multilateral 

case referred by Austria with the participation of Europol, which resulted in the arrest of several 

people including the leader of the criminal network.

Strategic Meeting on Drug Trafficking

The  second  Eurojust  strategic  meeting  on  drug  trafficking  was  held  on  21  and  22  September 

2005. The meeting was very successful, with nearly 80 participants from all Member States and 

including many expert investigators and prosecutors.

The purpose of the meeting was to identify MLA blockages in drug trafficking cases as well as 

possible solutions to them. The presentations took place in the morning, followed by workshops 

in the afternoon session. The second day was devoted to co-ordination meetings.

The following items were discussed and conclusions made in the workshops:

Drug trafficking through the internet

One  of  the  obstacles  identified  was  that  in  some  countries  the  sale  of  drugs  via  the  internet 

is  not  considered  to  be  a  crime.  Furthermore,  there  are  significant  differences  in  the  relevant 

legislation in each country as well as different methods of combating cybercrime. The necessity 

for judicial surveillance of the law enforcement agencies was underlined.

Admissibility of evidence

One of the main problems faced in this field is that in common law jurisdictions, witnesses must 

give oral evidence in court whereas civil law jurisdiction countries accept written statements. A 

solution to this inconsistency could be that when common law countries draft rogatory letters, 

they  should  state  clearly  the  necessity  for  witnesses  to  appear  in  person  in  court  to  give 

evidence.

As regards business records, it was suggested that it would be beneficial to compel mobile phone 

companies  throughout  the  EU  to  standardise  their  billing  records.  This  could  be  included  as  a 

legal condition for issuing licenses.

42

Controlled delivery cases

In  order  to  conduct  more  successful  operations  in  the  future,  the  following  suggestions  were 

made:

•   Prosecutors  must  be  involved  with  the  investigators  and  the  police  at  the  earliest 

possible moment;

•   Cross-border  controlled  deliveries  must  be  monitored  by  Europol  for  operational 

issues and by Eurojust for legal aspects;

•   Close  contacts  between  competent  authorities  before  and  during  the  controlled 

delivery are indispensable; and

•   Better  understanding  of  different  rules  in  Member  States  as  well  as  differences  in 

legal culture should be considered.

The  Drug  Trafficking  Team  plans  to  have  further  discussions  with  Europol  in  order  to  draft  an 

updated manual on controlled deliveries. Hopefully, the manual will be ready early in 2006.

Strategic Meeting on Trafficking in Human Beings (THB) and Illegal Immigration Crime

On  24  and  25  October  2005  a  practitioners’  meeting  was  held  on  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings 

(THB) and Illegal Immigration Crime. The meeting took place in the UK during the UK Presidency 

of the EU and was jointly organised by the UK Home Office and Eurojust. The purposes of the 

meeting were to discuss current developments in the field relevant to practitioners, to look at 

the extent of the THB problem in comparison with EU prosecution activity and case referrals and 

activities at Europol and Eurojust, and finally to promote discussion on specific investigation and 

prosecution approaches to casework. The main emphasis of the meeting was on THB but illegal 

immigration crime was included in order to contrast casework approaches. Presentations were 

given by senior prosecutors and police as well as by the European Commission, the Council of 

Europe, the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), the United Nations 

Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Europol, Eurojust and the Police Assistance Mission of the 

European Community to Albania (PAMECA). A general report, including recommendations, was 

given at the close of the meeting by a representative from the General Secretariat of the Council 

of the EU.

43

General conclusions and recommendations

It  is  agreed  that  THB  is  a  heinous  crime  committed  by  organised  criminal  groups  with  a  view 

to  sexual  or  labour  exploitation  of  men,  women  and  children  for  financial  gain.  During  the 

past  decade,  the  international  community  has  undertaken  a  number  of  actions  with  a  view  to 

combating  THB,  notably  the  adoption  of  the  Protocol  to  the  Palermo  Convention,  the  adoption 

of  the  Framework  Decision  by  the  Council  of  the  European  Union,  and  the  recent  signing  by 

16  Member  States  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  THB.  A  new  Action  Plan  on  THB  is 

in  the  process  of  being  adopted  at  EU  level  and  is  foreseen  in  The  Hague  Programme.  These 

instruments  provide  the  basis  for  a  group  response  to  THB  at  global  and  regional  levels.  The 

response at a national level should include a multi-agency approach encompassing all relevant 

national authorities, NGOs and co-operation with Eurojust and Europol.

Workshops and specific conclusions

The meeting divided into four groups to discuss a number of topics: (1) specific issues arising 

out  of  the  proposed  Council  and  Commission  Plan,  relevant  to  practitioners,  (2)  co-operation 

with  Eurojust  and  Europol,  and  (3)  specific  approaches  to  prosecutions.  The  discussions  took 

place  under  the  headings  listed  below;  the  issues  selected  for  discussion  are  crucial  at  local 

investigative and prosecutorial levels in dealing with THB. It is, therefore, suggested that these 

recommendations be taken into account by EU Member States in the formulation of an effective 

national response to combating THB.

Sharing of information/intelligence

Participants agreed that the sharing of information between prosecutors and investigators in EU 

Member States is a pre-condition for successful investigations and prosecutions in cross-border 

crimes  such  as  THB.  The  aim  should  be  to  share  information  appropriately  and  in  accordance 

with a common approach at local, regional, national and international levels. Systems through 

which  information  is  shared  must  facilitate  the  sharing  of  information  rather  than  impede  it; 

Europol’s  information  exchange  should  be  rapid  and  non-bureaucratic  and  give  added  value 

through  analysis.  Eurojust’s  information  exchange  should  be  in  the  context  of  specific  cases 

referred to Eurojust for assistance and co-ordination.

Where  possible  information  exchange  should  take  place  with  NGOs  and  victims’  organisations 

and  these  organisations  should  also  be  given  feedback  on  how  they  contributed  to  cases;  we 

should strive for a participatory approach.

44

 
Co-ordination between investigating/prosecuting authorities and 

other authorities

Participants agreed that co-operation must be established between investigating/prosecuting 

authorities and other national authorities, in particular those responsible for immigration, and 

that there would be advantages in establishing such co-operation in a permanent form.

NGOs and victims’ organisations should also be able to co-operate with investigating/prosecuting 

authorities,  although  competing  priorities  may  sometimes  exist.  In  order  to  facilitate  such  co-

operation, protocols or arrangements should be worked out to clarify each party’s role. This is 

particularly important with regard to vulnerable victims and children; steps should be taken to 

avoid re-victimisation.

Use of THB-specific offences

The special offence of THB should be used in all appropriate cases, but it was recognised that this 

is only possible where victims are defined as such and provide full co-operation. In other cases 

alternative  offences  should  be  pursued  but  the  offence  of  THB  should  never  be  confused  with 

offences relating to the control of prostitution or illegal immigration. In addition, action should 

always be taken to recover and confiscate financial gains and any profits resulting from THB.

Specialist training for prosecutors and judges

Training  and  specialisation  in  the  field  of  THB  for  prosecutors  has  only  recently  become  a 

subject  on  the  European  agenda.  National  training  programmes  and  specialist  designation  for 

prosecutors exist in some EU Member States; however, current approaches within the EU vary. 

Participants agreed that the combat of THB is such a specialised discipline that it requires expert 

knowledge and continuous training and that the efforts at local, regional, national and European 

levels should be intensified. The training should be multi-agency and should include the judiciary 

where appropriate. Current modules and manuals should be developed and shared amongst the 

Member States.

Use of Eurojust and Europol

Participants agreed that full use should be made of Eurojust and Europol with a view to adding 

value to cases in terms of co-ordination or other assistance and to the information collected at 

Europol  for  analysis.  It  was  recognised  that  it  is  difficult  for  national  prosecutors  to  deal  with 

THB  cases  alone  and  that  use  of  Europol’s  analytical  capabilities  and  Eurojust’s  co-ordination 

facilities can prove to be extremely effective. It is clear at present when looking at the extent 

45

 
of investigation/prosecution activity in the EU that Eurojust and Europol are not being used to 

full capacity.

More use could also be made of the European Judicial Network (EJN) for exchange of bilateral 

information and assistance in appropriate bilateral cases.

Approach to prosecutions and proof of the offences

Participants agreed that there should be a balance between the victim-led and intelligence-led 

approaches, aiming for a "mixed" approach in order to avoid unnecessary trauma to or pressure 

on  victims  and  that  victims  should  not  be  seen  simply  as  a  means  of  getting  a  conviction. 

However,  participants  were  divided  on  the  "Swedish  approach"  of  criminalising  the  customer; 

some  participants  felt  that  action  should  be  directed  solely  against  the  traffickers,  others  felt 

that  although  this  approach  could  not  be  endorsed,  customers  might  be  able  to  give  useful 

evidence against traffickers, whilst a further group of participants felt that there were merits in 

the American-style education of customers in so-called "John schools".

In any event it was agreed that the so-called "victimless prosecution" was a long way off in EU 

Member States and that sensitive treatment of victims and victim-friendly court procedures are 

key factors in all THB cases.

Strategic Meeting on Money Laundering

On 30 November 2005 Eurojust held a meeting focussing on Money Laundering, Asset Restraint 

and Confiscation. The event brought together practitioners from almost all EU states and time 

was  also  allocated  for  the  delegates  to  speak  with  each  other  separately  on  individual  cases. 

Delegates  heard  presentations  about  the  revised  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Money 

Laundering  and  one  which  gave  an  update  on  the  Camden  Asset  Recovery  Network  (CARIN). 

Prosecutors  from  the  specialist  Dutch  asset  confiscation  office  exchanged  experience  with 

delegates on problems, obstacles and possible solutions. Practitioners from Poland, Belgium and 

Luxembourg gave short outlines of cases and problems they had encountered. These included, 

among others, (a) the amount of detail required by the UK and some Member States for letters 

of  request  to  be  executed,  (b)  the  delays  in  execution  of  letters  of  request  in  some  Member 

States  (Spain  was  said  to  take  an  average  of  one  year  to  reply),  (c)  some  countries  issuing 

46

vague  letters  of  request  which  are  seen  as  a  "fishing  expedition"  and  so  cannot  be  executed 

by  the  courts,  and  (d)  inapplicable  civil  law  treaties  when  the  Member  State  is  a  party.  Some 

delegates  felt  there  were  inconsistencies  and  there  should  be  a  comparison  amongst  the  EU 

states of the mutual legal assistance required in money laundering cases.

Consumer Satisfaction Exercise

The  National  Members  of  Eurojust  are  very  aware  of  the  importance  of  providing  high-quality 

casework, and we are constantly trying to improve our performance in this respect. Delivering 

results  which  satisfy  our  national  authorities  is  not  only  important  in  the  fight  against  cross-

border  crime  in  the  Member  States  but  also  constitutes  our  most  effective  marketing  tool, 

ensuring that more high-quality cases will be referred to Eurojust.

To  support  this  effort,  the  College  in  2005  made  a  survey  of  the  satisfaction  of  the  national 

authorities  in  the  requesting  Member  State  with  the  casework  performed  in  100  randomly 

selected examples.

The  survey  showed  widespread  satisfaction  –  about  90%  reported  that  they  were  satisfied  or 

very satisfied "customers". It also showed that there is still room for improvement and we will 

continue working toward this goal.

A more detailed report on this survey is included as Annex III.

Casework Illustrations Introduction (20 Cases)

To illustrate Eurojust’s work on individual operational cases, we have described in the following 

examples a variety of cases involving different crimes and a number of Member States. However, 

to  illustrate  some  of  the  problems  and  barriers  we  encounter,  we  have  included  as  Annex  II  a 

catalogue of these difficulties.

47

 
Drug Trafficking – Urgent Search [case 1]

For  about  six  months,  the  Danish  police  had  investigated  a  major  case  of  drug  trafficking 

concerning  13  tons  of  hashish  and  a  large  shipment  of  cocaine.  The  suspected  leader  was  a 

Danish citizen residing in South America and with a number of accomplices in Luxembourg and 

Denmark.

For operational reasons there was an urgent need to arrest the main suspect and his accomplices. 

During his detention, the main suspect made reference in a telephone call to a person the police 

were able to identify as a Danish citizen residing in Spain with three known addresses. As it was 

believed that this person would be warned off and might destroy evidence on these premises, a 

search in Spain was urgently needed.

The Danish prosecution service referred the case to Eurojust on a Friday afternoon. The Danish 

and Spanish National Members assisted in formulating the MLA request, identifying the competent 

Spanish  courts,  contacting  the  relevant  judges,  solving  a  problem  regarding  the  reasons  for 

having the search on a weekend, and ensuring a court hearing on the next day, Saturday.

The  search  was  permitted  and  was  carried  out  on  Saturday  at  midday.  Valuable  evidence  was 

obtained.

To have a search arranged within 24 hours at three premises in two different court districts in 

another country would have been impossible under the old MLA regime – it was only achieved 

due to the involvement of Eurojust.

Carousel Fraud [case 2]

In  2004  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  in  Macerata,  Italy  carried  out  a  huge  investigation  of 

suspects indicted for criminal association and the recycling of invoices through the trafficking of 

cars from Germany to Italy.

In this case of carousel fraud affecting the interests of the European Community, Eurojust was 

requested  by  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  in  Macerata  to  organise  a  co-ordination  meeting  with  the 

competent  judicial  authorities  in  Germany.  Assistance  was  requested  by  the  Italian  authorities 

48

to facilitate the execution of a rogatory letter to be sent to Germany. This meeting led to fruitful 

collaboration between the Italian and German authorities. Valuable information was exchanged, 

the bank accounts of the suspects involved were identified and some searches were planned in 

German territory, and property and goods were confiscated.

Following an evaluation of the principle of non bis in idem, the competent authorities decided to 

proceed separately, and an independent proceeding was carried out by the German authorities 

which resulted in a case of serious tax evasion.

Terrorism [case 3]

In  April  2004  Italy  requested  assistance  from  Eurojust  concerning  alleged  links  between  the 

Neapolitan  Camorra  and  Islamic  terrorist  activities.  Italian  prosecutors  requested  co-operation 

from  the  Italian  and  Spanish  National  Members,  in  particular  to  investigate  the  connection 

between  a  Moroccan  citizen  arrested  in  Naples  and  charged  with  international  drug  trafficking 

offences  and  a  detainee  held  in  Spain  under  the  same  name  and  charged  with  involvement  in 

the terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004.

An  arrest  in  Naples  in  2003  unveiled  an  organisation  headed  by  the  Neapolitan  Camorra  and 

trafficking drugs between Italy and Spain through The Netherlands. One Moroccan was arrested 

on  that  occasion  and  later  released  because  of  lack  of  evidence  of  more  serious  charges,  only 

to  be  arrested  in  Spain  the  following  year  for  suspected  involvement  with  Islamic  terrorism. 

His  suspected  partner  in  crime  was  in  fact  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  group  responsible  for  the 

Madrid  attacks,  who  subsequently  committed  suicide  with  four  other  accomplices  in  order  to 

avoid arrest.

At a Eurojust meeting in Madrid in April 2005, Italy sought close judicial co-operation with Spain 

in order to ascertain the involvement of the Italian Mafia with Islamic terrorist networks. After 

comparing information and personal details in their possession relating to the Moroccan national, 

judicial  and  police  authorities  agreed  to  co-ordinate  future  investigations  and  exchanges  of 

information and secured an agreement for the Italian authorities and police officers to attend a 

hearing with the Moroccan detainee.

The meeting highlighted a high level of co-operation between Italy and Spain as it accomplished 

the  objective  of  establishing  a  rogatory  commission  to  strengthen  and  improve  exchanges  of 

49

information  and  judicial  co-operation  between  Italy  and  Spain.  In  September  2005  Italy  also 

requested mutual legal assistance from Morocco.

Drug Trafficking [case 4]

Investigations  in  Italy  in  2003  shed  light  on  an  Albanian  criminal  organisation  involved  in 

cocaine  transported  from  Belgium  and  The  Netherlands  into  Italy.  In  light  of  the  investigative 

links  with  Brussels  and  Rotterdam,  in  January  2004  the  Italian  prosecutor  in  Brescia  issued  a 

Letter  of  Request  seeking  help  with  telephone  interceptions  and  further  verifications  including 

the suspects’ complete identification.

In  order  to  prevent  this  Albanian  web  of  drug  dealers  from  operating  throughout  Albania, 

Belgium, Italy and The Netherlands, in May 2005 the Italian prosecutor issued 42 precautionary 

arrest  measures,  including  fourteen  European  Arrest  Warrants,  to  be  executed  in  Belgium  and 

The Netherlands.

At a multilateral co-ordination meeting with Belgium and The Netherlands held at Eurojust, the 

Italian prosecutor sought to secure judicial co-operation and exchange of information in order to 

locate the suspects and co-ordinate a simultaneous execution of the European Arrest Warrants. 

Prior to this meeting, requests were sent from Italy to Belgium and The Netherlands via Eurojust 

so as to obtain the necessary information to locate the suspects and plan a co-ordinated arrest 

operation.

At  this  meeting,  the  Italian  prosecutor  stressed  the  need  to  execute  these  precautionary 

measures simultaneously in order to prevent the suspects from avoiding arrest.

A co-ordination meeting was also held at Europol in The Hague to facilitate the efficient exchange 

of information between all judicial and law enforcement authorities involved.

During  the  month  of  October  2005  a  co-ordinated  arrest  operation  was  carried  out,  which 

signalled Eurojust’s success in ensuring effective judicial co-ordination.

50

Tax Fraud, Money Laundering, Corruption [case 5]

In  this  case  of  clandestine  employment  in  Germany,  dominated  by  a  Sicilian  Mafia-structured 

criminal  organisation,  Eurojust  was  requested  by  the  prosecution  office  in  Wuppertal  and  the 

State  Criminal  Police  Office  (LKA)  in  Düsseldorf  to  co-ordinate  coercive  measures  in  Germany 

and Italy. The criminals were active in the field of horticulture and landscaping, using a network 

of companies with bogus legal business structures, causing damages of several million Euros via 

price fixing arrangements, tax evasion, evasion of social insurance and corruption to strengthen 

their position in the market and in the area of public contracts.

During a co-ordination meeting held at Eurojust in March 2005 a detailed common strategy was 

set up for coercive measures to be taken simultaneously in Germany and Italy. Those measures, 

executed in April 2005, in Germany alone with the help of 900 prosecutors, policemen and civil 

servants  from  customs,  tax  enforcement  and  employment  offices,  led  to  (a)  the  execution  of 

nine  arrest  warrants  in  Germany  (with  two  legally  binding  convictions  and  several  indictments 

at this point in time), (b) the introduction of investigations against approximately 90 additional 

suspects,  (c)  the  execution  of  more  than  100  searches  and  (d)  the  confiscation  of  more  than 

€ 2.1 million. In Italy € 272.500 in cash and a Maserati automobile were confiscated.

German-Italian co-operation on both the judicial and the police level in this case has proved to 

be excellent, especially in the complicated area of confiscation of assets.

Serious Fraud – Urgent Multilateral Assistance [case 6]

On 8 and 15 April and 3 May 2005 the General Prosecution Office of the Slovak Republic asked 

for Mutual Legal Assistance from the competent authorities of the UK, Germany and Austria in 

the investigation and prosecution of a serious fraud case. This crime was alleged to have been 

committed by persons acting as representatives of a joint stock company. Each of these persons 

had  issued  and  signed  four  insurance  guarantee  bonds,  each  with  the  value  of  US$  5  million, 

in total amounting to US$ 20 million, without meeting the legal requirements prescribed by the 

special Act on Bonds. All of the bonds were due and payable on 30 September 2006. These bonds 

51

went into circulation through certain persons with the view to obtaining financial benefit from the 

sale for the perpetrators or for others in the amount of US$ 20 million. 

The Slovak authorities asked for the hearing of witnesses and submission of the securities.

The requests for MLA were fully met and executed by the UK and Austrian authorities in August 

and September 2005 and the German authorities, who could not meet the request fully due to 

a procedural obstacle, also replied in August 2005. This case is proof of very quick and effective 

assistance  by  Eurojust  and  the  competent  authorities  in  certain  Member  States.  The  results 

helped the competent authorities in the Slovak Republic to make a quick decision to charge the 

suspects. The investigation is still ongoing.

Illegal Immigration Crime [case 7]

Eurojust made a significant contribution to an illegal immigration crime case referred by the UK. 

It involved Turkish organised crime groups allegedly engaged in the smuggling of large numbers 

of  Turkish  Kurds  into  the  UK.  This  group  was  under  investigation  by  the  Metropolitan  Police  in 

London. The UK operation had links to a number of other countries, primarily Belgium, but also 

Italy,  France  and  Denmark.  The  UK  had  made  a  large  number  of  MLA  requests  for  evidence 

from  these  countries  and  the  swift  execution  and  facilitation  of  these  was  one  of  the  reasons 

for the referral of the case to Eurojust. Moreover, as the UK operation was moving towards an 

enforcement phase, the UK investigators and prosecutors were keen to ensure that any arrests 

they carried out in the UK were co-ordinated with the arrests of the suspects in the other involved 

countries, not only to maximise the effect but also in an effort to dismantle the entire organised 

people-smuggling network across all the countries in which it existed and operated. After arrest, 

exchange  of  information  and  evidence  would  be  required  in  preparation  for  prosecution  and, 

therefore, for all of these reasons, the case was referred to Eurojust.

A co-ordination meeting was held at Eurojust in May 2005. The UK, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, 

The Netherlands and Europol were represented. Amongst other things, a common enforcement 

date for arrests was discussed and agreed in principle. Ancillary issues, such as liaison with the 

Turkish authorities and a media strategy following the arrests, were also explored.

52

A follow-up meeting was held at Eurojust in September 2005, essentially to plan and co-ordinate 

the joint arrests due to take place at the beginning of October. A total of 26 arrests were made, 

19 in the UK and 7 in Belgium, during the joint action which ensued in both countries on 11 and 

13  October.  Clearly,  this  success  is  partially  a  product  of  the  co-ordinated  approach  to  cross-

border  cases  brokered  at  Eurojust.  Eurojust  continues  to  be  involved  in  this  case.  A  further 

meeting at Eurojust is proposed for early 2006 both for debriefing purposes and also to discuss 

the gathering of evidence in preparation for trials.

Terrorism – Extradition and Co-ordination [case 8]

There was an investigation into an Islamic cell in Spain that was planning a bomb attack against 

public and private institutions. The case had links to Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland. 

The  leader  of  the  organisation  was  at  large  and  there  was  an  arrest  warrant  issued  for  him. 

Due  to  this  warrant,  the  suspect  was  arrested  in  Switzerland  and  Swiss  authorities  began  an 

investigation into an Islamic cell that the suspect was setting up in Switzerland. Spain sent an 

extradition request for the suspect and Switzerland communicated informally their intention to 

refuse the request due to the existing investigation in Switzerland. Bilateral efforts to solve the 

problem failed, so the Spanish authorities contacted Eurojust.

A co-ordination meeting was arranged in order to share information and examine which jurisdiction 

was  in  a  better  position  to  prosecute.  The  sharing  of  information  revealed  a  more  developed 

investigation in Spain, with relevant evidence. The Dutch authorities that investigated an Islamic 

cell  that  falsified  ID  documents  decided  to  forego  jurisdiction  in  Spain,  as  some  members  of 

the  cell  under  investigation  in  Spain  were  using  false  passports  forged  by  perpetrators  in  The 

Netherlands. The Swiss authorities declared that they would recommend the authorisation of the 

extradition of the suspect to Spain, and this was indeed what the Swiss decided to do.

Eurojust not only facilitated the extradition, but at the same time solved a jurisdictional conflict 

between Switzerland and Spain.

53

Aggravated Fraud [case 9]

In an aggravated fraud case where the crime had been committed in Finland and the complainants 

were in The Netherlands, the Finnish prosecutor sent a request for legal assistance to the Dutch 

authorities  in  order  to  conduct  the  hearing  of  the  Dutch  complainants  via  a  video  conference. 

This  request  was  refused  by  the  Dutch  public  prosecutor  who  informed  the  Finnish  prosecutor 

that organising a video conference was not expedient.

At this point the Finnish National Member asked her Dutch colleague to influence the decision of 

his national authorities to allow the video conference to take place as part of the Finnish court 

session.  With  the  assistance  of  the  Dutch  National  Member,  the  judge  from  the  Investigating 

Magistrate’s  Office  agreed  to  organise  a  video  conference  which  took  place  successfully  at  the 

beginning of August 2005. During the technical preparations for the video conference, the Finnish 

prosecutor drew up a list of persons to be heard and a list of questions to be asked. Interpreters 

were used in both countries during the video conference to overcome possible linguistic problems 

during the hearing.

The video conference played an essential part in the proceedings and it was the turning point in 

the whole process. The similar stories of the Dutch complainants proved the explanations of the 

defendant false. Until the video conference he had denied all charges against him.

The technical arrangements worked perfectly and all the parties involved were satisfied with the 

results. This experiment proved to be the most cost-effective and time-saving practice for both 

the  complainants  and  the  proceedings,  but  this  result  would  not  have  been  achieved  without 

help from Eurojust.

Execution of a European Arrest Warrant and Surrender [case 10]

In  May  2005  Latvian  authorities  sent  to  the  Czech  Republic  a  request  to  execute  a  European 

Arrest  Warrant  and  to  surrender  a  person  who  had  committed  an  offence  before  1  November 

2004.

54

The  Czech  authorities  responded  that  surrender  of  the  person  on  the  basis  of  the  EAW  was 

not  possible  in  this  case,  because  the  Czech  legislation  implementing  the  Council  Framework 

Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and Surrender Procedures (2002/584/JHA) provides for 

surrender of persons on the basis of the EAW exclusively for acts committed after 1 November 

2004. Therefore, Czech authorities invited Latvian authorities to co-operate on the case on the 

basis of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition and its two additional Protocols. However, 

according to Latvian law, since the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant 

and Surrender Procedures was implemented in the Latvian national law, in Latvia, legal grounds 

no longer existed for co-operation on the basis of the Convention.

The  Czech  and  Latvian  National  Members  worked  closely,  consulting  their  national  authorities 

and  trying  to  find  a  possible  solution  in  the  case,  and,  within  two  days,  a  solution  was  found. 

Additional  documents,  supporting  the  EAW  and  the  request  for  surrender,  were  sent  by  Latvia 

to  the  Czech  Republic  through  diplomatic  channels;  thus,  the  requirements  of  the  judicial 

authorities of the Czech Republic were satisfied. The person was surrendered to Latvia.

This  case  demonstrates  the  benefit  of  referral  to  Eurojust  for  assistance  to  resolve  apparently 

insoluble judicial problems and to develop constructive co-operation between judicial authorities 

of the Member States.

Drug Trafficking [case 11]

In August 2004 a Slovenian citizen was arrested and later convicted in Italy for drug trafficking. 

In April 2005 an accomplice in this case was arrested and remanded in custody in Slovenia.

The  Slovenian  investigating  judge  needed  to  interview  the  defendant  who  was  in  custody  in 

Italy and he also required the corresponding documentation concerning the defendant’s arrest. 

In  May  2005  the  judge  sent  a  letter  of  request  to  the  Italian  authorities.  The  execution  of  the 

letter of request was urgent because of the limited time allowed for the detention of the suspect 

at  the  investigative  stage.  The  Italian  evidence  was  crucial  for  the  indictment.  The  Slovenian 

investigating  judge  was  waiting  for  this  execution  for  a  month  and  then  asked  the  Slovenian 

National Member for assistance.

The Italian and Slovenian National Members worked closely to persuade the Italian authorities 

to complete the execution quickly. With their assistance the Slovenian investigating judge was 

55

able  to  interview  the  defendant  in  an  Italian  prison  on  14  July  2005  and  at  the  same  time  he 

obtained  the  requested  documentation.  The  investigation  was  completed  before  the  expiration 

of  the  detention  period  and  the  Slovenian  prosecutor  was  able  to  bring  the  indictment  before 

the competent court.

Extradition [case 12]

In  early  October  2005,  following  the  request  of  the  Belgian  authorities,  police  in  the  Czech 

Republic  detained  a  Bulgarian  citizen.  The  court  decided  to  put  the  person  in  preliminary 

extradition custody. According to article 16, paragraph 4 of the 1957 Convention on Extradition, 

a period of 40 days started to run from the time of detention. The Belgian authorities were asked 

to deliver the extradition materials during that period.

However,  by  the  thirty-seventh  day  of  the  term,  the  Czech  Republic  had  not  received  any 

documentation  and  the  Czech  prosecutor  contacted  the  Czech  National  Member,  who  in  turn 

immediately  contacted  the  Belgian  National  Member,  who  then  got  in  touch  with  the  Belgian 

authorities. Both National Members were in contact with their ministries of justice and secured 

the  delivery  of  the  extradition  materials  to  the  Czech  Embassy  in  Brussels  on  the  thirty-ninth 

day. We should add that the last day of the term was a Saturday and the day before was a public 

holiday in Belgium.

Without  the  help  of  Eurojust  no  extradition  documents  would  have  been  delivered  in  time  and 

the suspect would have been released from custody.

Large-Scale Investment Fraud [case 13]

In this case, a number of Member States were involved: Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, 

Spain, the UK and a third country, Switzerland.

A Luxembourg investigating magistrate dealing with a complex cross-border case of large-scale 

investment fraud, with hundreds of victims and huge financial losses of between € 30 million and 

€ 50 million, requested Eurojust to facilitate the execution of urgent MLA requests and to help 

co-ordinate further judicial action in this case.

56

The  principal  suspect  was  in  pre-trial  custody  in  Luxembourg.  The  MLA  requests  were  aimed 

mainly at freezing bank accounts and recovering criminal assets.

A  co-ordination  meeting  between  Luxembourg,  Belgium,  France  and  Spain  was  organised  by 

Eurojust  in  November  2005.  The  authorities  involved  found  practical  solutions  to  problems 

encountered in the execution of various MLA requests. Some new areas for further investigations 

were also identified. Moreover, it was confirmed that Luxembourg and France were conducting 

parallel investigations of the same case. 

The two countries had powerful reasons to take on the entire case:

•   for France, due to the overwhelming number of French victims, the  need  to  ensure 

full protection of these victims’ rights; and

•   for  Luxembourg,  the  equally  important  need  to  counter  the  damage  done  by  such 

criminal activities to its financial institutions.

Following fruitful discussions, under Eurojust’s guidance, the participants reached an agreement 

that  the  proceedings  might  be  transferred  from  Luxembourg  to  France,  in  order  to  avoid  any 

overlapping of investigations.

At a later stage, this arrangement was confirmed by the prosecuting authorities of both countries, 

who decided that the French judiciary should take over the entire file. Thanks to the intervention 

of Eurojust, a possible conflict of jurisdiction was thus avoided.

This case clearly illustrates the benefit of co-ordination arranged by Eurojust at an early stage, 

notably when the execution of urgent MLA requests appears to be particularly difficult and there 

are on-going parallel investigations in different countries.

Drug Trafficking – European Arrest Warrant [case 14]

A  drug  trafficking  organisation  based  in  Madrid  and  introducing  drugs  into  Europe  was  under 

investigation  in  Spain,  where  nine  persons  were  in  pre-trial  detention.  All  suspects  were 

identified  and  the  police  were  waiting  to  seize  the  last  cargo  that  was  on  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

The boat with drugs was found near the Portuguese coast, and was stopped and boarded. Two 

57

of the suspects were in Portugal looking for a place where the cargo could be safely unloaded. 

The  Portuguese  police  arrested  them  and  seized  the  boat,  thus  commencing  a  new  judicial 

investigation in Lisbon.

A European Arrest Warrant was issued by Spain against the two suspects arrested in Portugal, 

but it was refused by the Portuguese authorities, who argued for Portuguese jurisdiction in order 

to continue the investigation and prosecution.

The  case  was  referred  to  Eurojust  and  was  dealt  with  by  the  Eurojust  National  Members  of 

Spain  and  Portugal,  who  organised  a  co-ordination  meeting  between  the  respective  national 

authorities.

Judicial authorities from different countries were carrying out investigations on the same evidence 

and  against  the  same  persons.  It  was  necessary  to  co-ordinate,  to  analyse  the  possibility  to 

concentrate the investigations in Spain and to ensure the surrender of the suspects to Spain.

The co-ordination required was set up through Eurojust. It was considered, on one hand, that the 

Spanish investigation had begun first, the relevant evidence concerning the criminal organisation 

was in Spain, the organisation was based in Spain, most of the members of the organisation had 

been arrested in Spain, and other linked activities were being investigated there; on the other 

hand, it was decided that the Portuguese investigation began as a consequence of the arrest of 

two suspects for specific acts, but the relevant evidence related to criminal organisation should 

be requested from Spain through requests already issued.

Taking these circumstances into account, even though there was a judicial decision refusing the 

surrender of the suspects to Spain, the Portuguese National Member asked his national authority 

to consider that Spanish authorities were in a better position to continue the investigation and 

prosecution.

The  advice  of  Eurojust  was  accepted  by  the  Portuguese  prosecutor,  who  asked  the  judge  to 

transfer  the  proceedings  to  Spain.  The  proposal  was  accepted  and  confirmed  by  the  Court  of 

Appeal following a request made by one of the defendants.

Once the ground for optional non-execution of the European Arrest Warrant was removed, a new 

European Arrest Warrant was issued by the Spanish judge in co-ordination with the Portuguese 

authorities.

58

As a final result, the criminal proceedings were transferred and the defendants were surrendered 

to Spain.

A good co-ordination of the cases was achieved between the two national authorities, with the 

support  of  Eurojust,  with  the  prosecution  in  one  Member  State  and  the  issuing  of  a  European 

Arrest Warrant, successfully solving a conflict of jurisdiction.

THB – Third Country [case 15]

In March 2005 Latvian authorities initiated a criminal investigation into a case of trafficking of 

persons from Latvia to Norway for prostitution committed by an organised criminal group in the 

period from November 2004 to February 2005.

Legal assistance from Norwegian authorities was necessary in the case as some of the members 

of the criminal group were active in Latvia recruiting women and others were active in Norway, 

renting an apartment and registering telephone numbers for the provision of sexual services.

In  March  2005  Latvian  authorities  sent  a  request  to  Norway  for  MLA,  requesting  identification 

of the exact address of the apartment in Oslo where the sexual services were rendered, to find 

the  place  of  residence  of  the  Latvian  women  still  staying  in  Norway  and  to  examine  them  as 

witnesses. The request to facilitate the execution of MLA was sent via Eurojust. On the basis of 

information  received  from  Latvia,  competent  authorities  in  Norway  initiated  a  parallel  criminal 

investigation in respect of Norwegian nationals involved in the case. Co-ordination and support 

from  Eurojust  facilitated  the  effective  exchange  of  information  and  co-operation  between 

Norwegian  and  Latvian  authorities  during  the  parallel  investigations  of  the  case.  Both  Latvian 

and Norwegian criminal investigations are still ongoing.

The  MLA  in  the  case  was  requested  by  the  Latvian  authorities  within  the  framework  of  the 

European  Convention  on  Mutual  Assistance  in  Criminal  Matters.  Entry  into  force  of  the  co-

operation agreement between Norway and Eurojust on 26 October 2005 facilitated co-operation 

and co-ordination between the national authorities in the case.

59

THB – Three Jurisdictions [case 16]

Considerable value and undoubted benefit were added to a series of trafficking in human beings 

cases  referred  to  Eurojust  by  the  UK.  It  is  significant  to  note  that  these  cases,  although  they 

emanated  from  different  parts  of  the  UK,  namely  London,  South  Yorkshire  and  Scotland,  were 

clearly linked to one another in that they centred on investigations into the trafficking activities 

of a network of Albanian organised crime groups.

The  UK  and  Lithuanian  desks  at  Eurojust,  in  dealing  with  these  cases,  were  involved  in  all 

aspects  of  the  services  offered  to  national  authorities  by  Eurojust  ―  the  facilitation  of  UK  and 

Lithuanian  MLA  requests,  the  initiation  and  subsequent  co-ordination  of  linked  investigations 

and prosecutions and the planning and arranging for the execution of an urgent European Arrest 

Warrant within a short space of time and under complicated circumstances. 

The cases concerned the trafficking of women and girls, some as young as 14, from Lithuania to 

the UK. On arrival in the UK, the women were sold to Albanian organised crime groups for the 

purpose of prostitution.

The initial reason for the referral to Eurojust was to facilitate MLA requests for evidence to be 

used  in  forthcoming  trials  of  the  Albanian  defendants  in  England.  On  a  review  of  the  cases  at 

Eurojust, it became apparent that there was a need to initiate investigations in Lithuania against 

the organisers, who were engaged in recruiting the victims and transporting them to the UK.

Both  of  these  objectives  were  achieved  at  a  successful  co-ordination  meeting  held  at  Eurojust 

in January 2005. Information and intelligence were shared with the Lithuanian prosecutors and 

police, who thereafter agreed to commence investigations. This resulted in arrests in Lithuania 

and the commencement of investigations, the merger of existing investigations and co-ordination 

of  UK  and  Lithuanian  investigations.  Europol  also  participated  in  this  meeting,  providing  an 

insight into intelligence collected on the activities of Albanian organised crime groups.

At the same time, in the UK, further arrests were also made, in particular in the Sussex area, 

when  one  of  the  alleged  Lithuanian  couriers  arrived  at  Gatwick  Airport.  Due  to  problems  in 

establishing jurisdiction in England and Wales, no prosecution resulted. After further discussions 

conducted  through  Eurojust,  the  Lithuanian  authorities  confirmed  that  they  were  able  to 

establish jurisdiction and could prosecute and, in furtherance of this, agreed to issue a European 

Arrest Warrant.

60

The preparation, issuance and execution of this warrant were co-ordinated through Eurojust. The 

entire process, which included re-issue of the EAW, due to the requirement by the UK authorities 

of additional essential information, took only four days to complete and resulted in the Lithuanian 

suspect being transferred to Lithuania for trial.

During  the  same  period,  the  International  Co-operation  Unit  at  Crown  Office  in  Scotland  also 

referred  a  trafficking  case  to  Eurojust.  This  case  was  referred  for  facilitation  of  mutual  legal 

assistance  and  involved  very  similar  circumstances  –  the  trafficking  of  women  and  girls  from 

Lithuania to the UK, the sale on arrival in the UK to Albanians and the women thereafter being 

put to work in the UK’s sex trade.

An  assessment  of  the  Scottish  investigation  at  Eurojust  revealed  common  factors  and  links  to 

both  the  ongoing  English  cases  and  the  investigations  in  Lithuania.  The  Lithuanian  National 

Member  at  Eurojust  advised  his  domestic  authorities  of  these  links  and  the  Lithuanian  side  of 

the investigations was combined and would be dealt with as one case. It is hoped that this will 

strengthen the Lithuanian case and when this ultimately proceeds to trial, it will incorporate the 

trafficking to both Scotland and England.

The cases, referred to Eurojust by the Crown Prosecution Service in South Yorkshire, have now 

been  brought  to  trial  and  have  resulted,  not  only  in  convictions,  but  also  in  lengthy  custodial 

sentences, including 18 and 21 years’ imprisonment.

Co-operation between both Scottish and English authorities and their Lithuanian counterparts is 

ongoing  to  progress  and  prepare  for  the  Lithuanian  prosecutions.  Eurojust  continues  to  play  a 

significant part in this collaboration. These cases both individually and cumulatively are excellent 

examples  of  how  Eurojust  can  make  a  difference  as  it  facilitates  and  co-ordinates  necessary 

actions between individual national authorities and agencies.

Child Pornography [case 17]

An  internet  web  page  was  used  to  exchange  and  broadcast  images  of  child  pornography. 

Individuals  in  different  countries  of  Europe  and  Central  and  South  America  were  involved  in 

this  exchange:  Spain,  Sweden,  France,  Italy,  Chile,  Argentina,  Costa  Rica,  and  Peru.  Eurojust 

61

was  asked  to  help  co-ordinate  the  investigatory  and  prosecutorial  action  in  co-operation  with 

the South American prosecution organisation, IberRED (La Red Iberoamericana de Cooperacion 

Judicial).

Competent authorities of certain countries are sometimes reluctant to investigate and prosecute 

this type of crime, especially when suspects live in different countries.

A co-ordination meeting took place at Eurojust, involving not only competent authorities of EU 

countries, but also those from several Central and South American countries through IberRED. 

Here problems relating to legal requirements for the initiation of investigations in every involved 

country,  as  well  as  jurisdictional  problems,  were  solved;  a  co-ordinated  action  plan,  for  the 

purpose of performing searches and investigations, was also adopted.

Arrests and prosecutions were conducted in different countries in Europe and Central and South 

America,  involving  more  than  100  persons  from  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Uruguay,  Panama,  Chile 

and Argentina.

This case is the first example of co-ordination between Europe and Central and South America 

through the intervention of Eurojust and IberRED.

Euro Counterfeiting [case 18]

A sophisticated criminal organisation, involved in counterfeiting of the Euro, forgery of documents 

and  credit  cards,  drug  trafficking  and  trafficking  in  human  beings  was  successfully  dismantled 

on  5  October  2005,  when  15  suspected  members,  including  the  two  alleged  leaders  of  the 

organisation, were arrested in Bulgaria and Austria.

Thirty  locations  in  Bulgaria  and  Austria  were  searched  simultaneously.  Forged  documents, 

including  passports,  debit,  credit  and  ID  cards,  as  well  as  counterfeit  Bulgarian  ministerial 

documents,  were  seized.  In  addition,  firearms,  synthetic  drugs,  counterfeit  Euro  banknotes, 

large amounts of cash and documents related to money laundering were also recovered.

This  operation  was  the  result  of  months  of  concerted  and  integrated  efforts  by  the  Bulgarian 

and Austrian police, their judicial authorities and Europol, with co-ordination and support from 

Eurojust.

62

Eurojust  organised  two  co-ordination  meetings  to  help  resolve  the  case.  The  first  took  place 

in The Hague on 28 June and the second in Vienna on 29 September. These meetings enabled 

all  those  involved  in  the  operation,  including  the  Bulgarian  authorities,  to  discuss  and  plan 

operations in detail and to resolve problems to prepare for the joint operation. Without the co-

ordination and support of Eurojust, the Bulgarian authorities could not have attended the crucial 

second co-ordination meeting.

This was a high-profile case, also extensively covered in the Austrian media, which highlighted the 

involvement of Eurojust, and which was greatly appreciated by the Austrian judicial authorities. 

This  experience  has  established  good  relations  with  all  the  police  and  judicial  authorities  who 

were  involved.  The  very  positive  result  in  this  case  has  created  a  solid  foundation  of  mutual 

trust  between  the  police  and  judicial  authorities  and  Eurojust  which  will  provide  the  basis  for 

co-operation and for co-ordinated action in the future.

Terrorism [case 19]

In Sweden in 2005 two Iraqi nationals, with connections to Ansar al-Islam, alias Ansar al-Sunna, 

and the network around Abu Musab al Zarqavi, terrorist organisations internationally recognised 

and linked to al-Qaeda, were indicted and subsequently arrested for financing of terrorism for a 

total amount of US$ 148.000.

They were charged with preparation of a terrorist crime and with preparations to endanger public 

safety, and alternatively with financing particularly serious criminal acts. This was the first time 

anyone in Sweden was prosecuted under the Swedish terrorist act.

Apparently a variety of terrorist organisations had been involved in this operation, whose goal 

was  ultimately  to  establish  an  Islamic  state  based  on  Sharia  law.  Financial  support  for  the 

proposed terrorist crime was collected between 2002 and 2004 in mosques in Sweden and later 

transferred  to  Iraq,  using  the  so-called  Hawala  banking  system,  and  via  couriers.  Part  of  the 

proceeds were suspected to be set aside to prepare a deadly bomb attack in Arbil, Iraq, which 

took place at the beginning of 2004.

International  co-operation  was  of  the  utmost  importance  in  conducting  this  investigation.  The 

Swedish  prosecutor,  who  also  is  a  terrorist  correspondent  for  Eurojust,  informed  Eurojust  at 

an  early  stage  about  the  ongoing  investigation  in  Sweden.  The  Swedish  prosecutor  needed 

63

 
evidence  concerning  the  connection  to  or  membership  of  the  two  perpetrators  in  the  terrorist 

organisations and evidence concerning how the money was sent to Iraq.

Swedish  judicial  authorities  required  important  relevant  information  to  be  gathered  in  another 

EU  Member  State.  As  this  information  was  part  of  an  undercover  operation,  the  requested 

Member  State  was  not  willing  to  share  this  information  with  Sweden.  After  several  meetings 

and co-ordination through Eurojust, the two Member States agreed upon an extensive exchange 

of information and executed the related MLA requests. Sweden received more information and 

evidence than expected. Among other things, it was proved that US$ 70.000 was transferred to 

Iraq just before the bomb attack in Northern Iraq.

Some  evidence  originating  from  another  EU  Member  State  was  presented  before  the  District 

Court  in  Stockholm  and  the  Court  of  Appeal  in  Sweden.  The  two  perpetrators  were  finally 

convicted by the Court of Appeal of preparation of a terrorist crime, preparation of endangering 

public safety and of financing particularly serious criminal acts. The Court of Appeal did not find 

sufficient proof that the financial support was specifically meant for the bomb attack in Arbil, but 

for terrorism in general. The judgement has come into force.

The Swedish prosecutor in charge was also called as a witness to another EU Member State to 

give a statement concerning the court hearings in Stockholm.

Illegal Immigration – Pachtou [case 20]

Operation  Pachtou  was  a  case  which  brought  together  a  series  of  investigations  involving  four 

EU Member States and Turkey. Investigations in France and the UK showed that a sophisticated 

network was moving people from the Kurdish areas of Turkey through Greece into Italy and from 

there to France and the UK. Eurojust made enquiries which revealed that separate investigations 

into the same network, which were not so far advanced, were also taking place in Italy, Greece 

and  Turkey.  Eurojust  arranged  a  co-ordination  meeting  in  October  which  was  attended  by 

police,  investigators,  judges  and  prosecutors  from  each  of  the  five  states  involved.  A  good 

deal  of  information  was  exchanged  and  the  links  between  the  different  parts  of  the  network 

become much clearer. The French and UK representatives were keen to act quickly and make a 

series of arrests in their countries. However after discussions and agreement to provide further 

64

information to the Italian, Greek and Turkish authorities it was agreed that the French and UK 

agencies would delay any action so that a series of arrests and house and other searches could 

take place on the same day in all five countries in December. On 14 December the network was 

dismantled when 82 arrests took place across Europe: in Turkey (3), in Greece (2), in Italy (21), 

in France (49), and in the UK (7).

This case illustrates benefits that a multinational multi-functional approach through Eurojust can 

offer. It also demonstrates the point that a case which was initially a bilateral matter introduced 

by France and the UK can be effectively expanded at Eurojust to involve several other Member 

States and ensure work is done together to produce a very successful outcome.

65

6666

6767

4   R E L A T I O N S   W I T H   N A T I O N A L   A U T H O R I T I E S

Eurojust  attaches  great  importance  to  the  further  development  and  maintenance  of  good 

relationships  with  national  authorities  to  enhance  the  number  of  case  referrals  and  raise  both 

professional and public awareness of Eurojust.

The number of cases referred to Eurojust by the national authorities has increased significantly 

each year. In 2004 the number of cases referred to Eurojust was 381. In 2005 the number rose 

to 588. This increase is also reflected in the number of complex cases referred to Eurojust.

These encouraging statistics do not indicate that all the cases that could be referred to Eurojust 

are actually sent to us. There are still some Member States who have fewer case referrals than 

one  might  expect  and,  even  in  those  jurisdictions  that  are  regular  "customers"  of  Eurojust, 

there are many cases that were handled without the co-operation of Eurojust although this co-

operation might well have added value. Many cases came from the Member States that joined 

the EU on 1 May 2004, which we note as a very positive development.

In addition, during 2005, several Ministers of Justice, Prosecutors General and parliamentarians, 

both from the European Parliament and from national parliaments, visited Eurojust, but there is 

still much to be done to ensure that Eurojust is known sufficiently by the competent authorities, 

i.e., the practitioners in the Member States.

Marketing Seminars

In order to improve this situation most of the National Members organised marketing seminars 

in their own countries for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers. A seminar was held 

in Thessaloniki, Greece, with the participation of over 90 prosecutors. A similar event took place 

in  Tallinn,  where  over  100  prosecutors  from  the  three  Baltic  countries  were  present.  Another 

seminar  was  held  in  Cottbus  on  the  German–Polish  border  with  over  100  prosecutors  from 

Germany,  Poland  and  Ukraine  participating.  Furthermore,  in  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany 

alone, almost 70 seminars were held in the different Länder, 15 took place in Portugal, several 

took place in Austria, France, The Netherlands and Finland and a seminar was held in Budapest, 

Hungary, with the participation of 60 Hungarian prosecutors. For the first time, a seminar was 

held in Malta, where almost all judiciary and law enforcement authorities were present.

Most of the time these seminars are conducted only by the national desks concerned, but quite 

often some other National Members assist their colleagues to provide a real European flavour. 

6868

Moreover,  marketing  occurs  quite  frequently  in  the  premises  of  Eurojust  when  delegations  of 

magistrates  or  police  officers  or  other  officials  from  Member  States  visit  our  building.  This 

happened on at least thirty occasions during 2005.

Eurojust also takes part in seminars organised by other EU institutions, by the Council of Europe, 

the  United  Nations  and  others  where  information  is  provided  about  Eurojust’s  tasks,  role  and 

functions.  Although  Eurojust  tries  to  comply  as  often  as  possible,  because  such  participation 

helps to raise our profile and thus encourage case referrals, these marketing exercises sometimes 

interfere  with  our  core  business,  the  co-ordination  of  criminal  cases.  Consequently  the  College 

is  always  trying  to  find  a  reasonable  balance  between  the  demands  of  our  casework  and  the 

necessity to promote Eurojust in the Member States.

All  Member  States  have  appointed  national  correspondents  to  Eurojust  for  terrorism.  The 

nomination of national correspondents, which is permitted by Article 12, para. 1 of the Eurojust 

Decision,  has  not  been  taken  up  by  all  the  Member  States.  The  College  of  Eurojust  welcomes 

such nominations as they will help to strengthen and intensify the quality of working relationships 

with the relevant national authorities.

6969

5   T H I R D   S T A T E S 

Cross-border criminals respect neither national frontiers nor the frontiers of the EU. Consequently 

Eurojust’s work to build strong relationships with important countries outside the EU remains a 

high priority.

We  have  continued  to  develop  our  list  of  informal  contact  points  in  non-EU  countries  and  this 

list  is  an  initial  consideration  and  identifies  possible  countries  with  which  we  feel  it  would  be 

beneficial to have a formal co-operation agreement.

The co-operation agreement with the Kingdom of Norway was signed on 28 April 2005 and came 

into force on 1 August 2005. Knut Kallerud, a senior prosecutor from the Office of the Director 

of Public Prosecutions in Norway, was seconded to work at Eurojust on a permanent basis. Mr. 

Kallerud  is  based  in  Eurojust  and  he  participates  on  a  regular  basis  in  much  of  the  work  of 

Eurojust and in the cases in which Norway is involved.

We were very pleased that during 2005 negotiations to complete formal co-operation agreements 

were concluded with both the Republic of Romania and the Republic of Iceland. Both agreements 

were approved by the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs and signed on 2 December 

2005 in Brussels, within in the framework of the Ministers’ meeting.

Formal negotiations with the United States of America continued throughout the year. There is 

willingness on both sides to conclude an agreement in the near future, but the differences in legal 

systems,  and  especially  in  data  protection  regimes,  mean  that  there  are  still  some  significant 

difficulties  to  overcome.  Our  objective  is  to  use  our  best  endeavours  to  find  solutions  that  are 

acceptable to both sides and to finalise these negotiations before the summer of 2006.

On 1 December 2005 the first official meeting took place between Eurojust and the competent 

authorities  of  the  Swiss  Federation,  who  were  represented  by  both  the  Federal  Ministry  of 

Justice  and  the  Federal  Prosecution  Service.  The  Swiss  delegation  will,  after  consultation  with 

their federal authorities, inform Eurojust in early 2006 if an agreement can be negotiated within 

the structures of the Swiss legal system. If the answer is in the affirmative, negotiations could 

commence in the first quarter of 2006.

Eurojust  has  had  a  contact  point  in  Ukraine  for  some  time.  In  December  2005  we  received 

a  delegation  from  Ukraine  whose  purpose  was  to  examine  the  possibility  of  starting  formal 

negotiations  to  conclude  an  agreement  with  Eurojust.  The  outcome  was  promising  and  both 

parties agreed joint objectives to start negotiations in early 2006 and to conclude an agreement 

before the end of 2006.

7272

We made initial contacts with the government of Croatia during the year which led to Eurojust 

making  a  formal  invitation  to  the  Croatian  Minister  of  Justice  to  visit  Eurojust  in  early  2006. 

We  hope  that  the  outcome  of  the  visit  will  mean  that  negotiations  on  another  co-operation 

agreement can commence.

We had regular contacts with Turkey and Bulgaria, two other states that are candidates for EU 

membership.  Our  links  with  Turkey  became  more  frequent  and  several  delegations  of  Turkish 

magistrates and law enforcement officers visited Eurojust during 2005. Both Turkey and Bulgaria 

were  involved  in  individual  cases,  which  were  co-ordinated  by  Eurojust  and  about  which  some 

information is outlined elsewhere in this report. The co-operation was satisfactory.

Our relationship with the Russian Federation did not develop as we had predicted in our Annual 

Report for 2004. However co-operation in individual cases has worked well through our contact 

point in Moscow. We are hoping to begin work early in 2006 with the aim of establishing a more 

formal  basis  for  regular  co-operation.  The  Russian  Federation  has,  through  its  Mission  to  the 

EU  in  Brussels,  invited  Eurojust  to  visit  Moscow  in  2006.  Eurojust  will  be  happy  to  accept  the 

invitation provided negotiations for a possible agreement with the competent Russian authorities 

are on the agenda.

Contacts with Latin American states through the IberRED (La Red Iberoamericana de Cooperacion 

Judicial) network continued during 2005, specifically in individual cases where Central and South 

American countries were involved. IberRED has proved to be a useful gateway to the competent 

judicial authorities in the region. Eurojust’s Legal Service has started a feasibility study on the 

possibility of concluding an agreement between the two bodies.

In  2005  Eurojust  was  invited  to  and  participated  in  the  Regional  Co-operation  Programme  in  the 

field  of  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  -  Euromed  Justice  Programme  -  for  the  Mediterranean  partners 

which  is  funded  by  the  European  Commission  and  managed  by  the  European  Institute  of  Public 

Administration  within  the  framework  of  the  Barcelona  Declaration  of  November  1995.  The  third 

seminar  under  the  topic  "Terrorism  and  interconnection  of  criminal  networks",  organised  with  the 

support of the Ministry of Justice of The Netherlands, was hosted by Eurojust in December 2005. 

The participation of Eurojust in this initiative allows us to offer support for the achievements of the 

main objectives of the Programme, which are to encourage the exchange of experience, knowledge 

and good practice and to set up a Euro-Mediterranean network in the field of judicial co-operation.

7373

Western Balkans

During  2005  the  Western  Balkans  Team  at  Eurojust  continued  to  work  on  the  development  of 

relations with the countries of that important region which includes Croatia and FYR Macedonia, 

both currently EU candidate countries, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia & Montenegro and Albania. 

The  work  of  our  team  was  divided  between  contributing  to  ongoing  EU  and  regional  projects 

or  initiatives,  and  Eurojust’s  own  objective  to  achieve  good  quality  co-operation  with  national 

prosecuting and investigating authorities in the region. We also aim to secure the appointment 

of contact points in all the countries for the purposes of effective operational co-operation.

Members  of  the  team  contributed  to  aspects  of  the  Commission’s  CARDS  Police  and  Judiciary 

projects  in  the  region  and  gave  presentations  on  international  judicial  co-operation  and  the 

work of Eurojust at various regional conferences and meetings including those organised by the 

Commission,  the  Council  and  the  UN.  The  team  represented  Eurojust  at  the  JHA  and  Western 

Balkans ministerial meeting which took place in Vienna in November 2005 and also took part in 

a strategic meeting organised by the Commission and Council to examine EU activities and set 

priorities for the region in the JHA field. Through the Western Balkans Team, Eurojust continued 

to  support  regional  projects  such  as  the  South  Eastern  European  Prosecutors  Advisory  Group 

(SEEPAG)  in  2005,  and  encouraged  their  participation  in  the  last  EJN  plenary  meeting  held  in 

Scotland during the UK Presidency.

The appointment of Eurojust contact points in all countries of the Western Balkans was confirmed 

in 2005, and on 15 November 2005, the Western Balkans Team organised a meeting at Eurojust 

for the contact points from Albania, Croatia and Montenegro, in order to discuss possibilities for 

future  operational  co-operation.  Unfortunately  other  contact  points  were  unable  to  be  present. 

This  was  a  very  useful  meeting  and  it  is  hoped  that  the  appointment  of  contact  points  in  the 

countries  of  the  Western  Balkan  region  will  encourage  relevant  case  referrals  to  Eurojust  from 

national authorities in both that region and from EU Member States. A further meeting is planned 

in early 2006 for the contact points from Bosnia & Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia and Serbia and 

it is hoped that we will have more opportunities to co-operate operationally with colleagues from 

the Western Balkans in 2006.

7474

7575

6   A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

Introduction

The  day-to-day  management  of  the  administration,  including  the  management  of  staff  and 

budget,  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Administrative  Director,  who  is  supervised  by  the  President 

of the College.

The  administration  is  pleased  that  the  main  objectives  set  out  for  2005  were  met.  Significant 

progress was made in all areas by the end of 2005 to establish the basic infrastructure that is 

needed for Eurojust and the EJN to be fully operational.

Eurojust’s  sound  financial  management  was  confirmed  in  the  report  of  the  European  Court  of 

Auditors for the financial year 2004. The recommendations of the Court were the basis for the 

resolution  of  the  European  Parliament  to  grant  discharge  to  the  Administrative  Director  for  his 

responsibilities.

Although  during  2005  some  progress  was  made  towards  establishing  an  Integrated  Quality 

Management System (IQMS) within Eurojust, full implementation is planned for 2006. In 2005 

the European Commission’s Internal Audit Service carried out the first, limited review of Eurojust, 

taking into account that the Unit is still in its establishment phase. The outcome will constitute 

an important element in the further development of an IQMS.

Staffing and Organisational Structure:

BUDGET & FINANCE

JOINT SUPERVISORY BODY

HUMAN RESOURCES

THE COLLEGE

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

LEGAL SERVICE

SECURITY 
& GENERAL SERVICES

EJN

ADMINISTRATIVE 
DIRECTOR

SECRETARY TO THE COLLEGE

DATA PROTECTION OFFICER

PRESS OFFICER

The  organisational  structure  has  proved  itself  to  be  effective  and  efficient.  During  2005  only 

minor adaptations were made. A limited review is planned for 2006 to respond to the increasing 

need to support the operational work of the College.

7676

In 2005, in accordance with Article 9 of the Staff Regulations and the respective implementing 

rules,  the  staff  elected  its  first  Staff  Committee.  A  suitable  infrastructure  was  set  up  and 

regular working sessions were established with the Administrative Director as well as with the 

Presidency Team. A considerable number of items dealing with the general welfare of the staff 

are being addressed through this forum.

Budgetary Management

The  budget  of  €  13  million  for  2005  was  executed  up  to  93%.  Almost  100%  of  the  personnel 

costs  and  infrastructure  costs  were  executed;  for  operational  costs,  €  3.530.231,39  out  of 

€ 4.201.025,68  was  committed.  For  the  latter  figure  a  higher  rate  of  execution  was  targeted 

but was difficult to achieve as € 2 million was only granted in the second reading of the budget 

in December 2004 and was allocated to operational costs. However we should mention that the 

number of co-ordination meetings hosted by Eurojust rose significantly in 2005 and this is also 

reflected in the budget with a 200% increase in the amount allocated for this purpose. Eurojust is 

confident that the appropriations that were not used in 2005 will be made available during 2006 

because Eurojust’s request for € 16.5 million has been cut down to € 14.7 million and the missing 

appropriations will be required to finalise the basic infrastructure for Eurojust and the EJN.

In  2005  considerable  progress  was  made  to  improve  the  budgetary  management  process.  On 

the  basis  of  study  visits  to  other  agencies  to  look  at  best  practice,  the  outcome  of  the  audit 

Figure 7: Eurojust budget

(Figures in millions of Euros)

16.5

14.7

13.3 13

12.1

11.5

9.3 9.1

8

8

6.2

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

Requested 

Received 

Executed

7777

 
by the European Court of Auditors and the recommendations of the Internal Audit Service, the 

responsibilities  of  the  different  parties  have  been  clarified,  and  policies  and  workflows  were 

reviewed and improved.

Although  in  2005  some  progress  was  made  in  the  negotiation  of  the  Financial  Regulation, 

Eurojust  is  still  waiting  for  the  approval  of  the  European  Commission.  We  trust  that  the  latest 

proposal by Eurojust concerning the two outstanding items will be acceptable to the Commission 

and that the dossier can be closed early in 2006.

Personnel Management and Recruitment (Human Resources Unit)

During 2005 the Human Resources Unit primarily focussed on the recruitment of staff members 

for Eurojust. Because of the reform of 1 May 2004, the Unit devoted considerable attention to 

the effective implementation of the new Staff Regulations, which also required the HR software 

program, "Centurio", to be updated.

Eurojust’s growing number of staff has also triggered an increase in both internal and external 

training sessions.

By the end of 2005, of the 87 posts available 70 positions were filled in the Eurojust establishment 

plan.  Recruitment  for  the  remaining  vacant  posts  for  temporary  agents  has  been  launched.  To 

ensure continuity in handling the workload, interim staff have been recruited for the posts not 

yet filled and some Seconded National Experts were appointed.

Figure 8: Human Resources

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

78

70

52

28

6

2002

2003

2004

2005

The Human Resources Unit was pleased to note a heightened interest in Eurojust both through an 

increase in applications for vacancies and an increase in the number of requests for internships 

from all the EU Member States.

Information Management (IM) Unit

In  2005  the  IM  Unit  made  significant  progress  in  professionalising  the  services  it  provides.  In 

addition to co-ordinating Eurojust’s contribution to the E-POC II Project, the Unit implemented a 

second, highly secure, internal data network to support the Case Management System. A number 

of  other  ICT  projects  were  also  launched,  including  the  provision  of  a  Document  Management 

System and the preparation of a connection to give National Members access to the Schengen 

Information System.

Working  with  the  Press  Office  the  IM  Unit  also  created  a  new  internet  site  for  Eurojust,  and 

supported the Secretariat of the EJN in the transfer of the EJN website. Eurojust’s IM Unit now 

provides and supports the technical infrastructure for this important EJN tool. The preparations 

have  been  made  to  provide  a  secure  communications  infrastructure  for  both  Eurojust  and  the 

EJN, the implementation of which will be a major goal for 2006.

The library has been further enhanced with a large number of new books and subscriptions to 

online and other electronic resources. The procurement procedure for library furniture has been 

completed and this will allow the physical establishment of the library in 2006.

Data Protection Officer (DPO)

This has been an important year in the expansion of a robust data protection regime at Eurojust. 

This was initially due to the approval of the rules of procedure on the processing and protection 

of personal data by the Council on 24 February 2005.

The  Data  Protection  Officer  has  played  an  important  role  in  the  development  of  the  rules  and 

of  the  Case  Management  System,  which  is  fully  compatible  with  the  data  protection  rules  and 

includes the capacity to ensure automatic compliance with numerous provisions of the rules of 

procedure.

Among other activities, the DPO helped to develop a good level of understanding and awareness 

amongst  Eurojust  staff  and  the  College.  Several  information  sessions  were  held  and  oral  and 

written  advice  was  given  to  the  College  and  the  administration  on  a  number  of  occasions. 

79

The DPO  was  regularly  involved  in  the  work  of  the  College  Data  Protection  Team  and  of  the 

Security Committee. 

The DPO has liaised with the Joint Supervisory Body and actively contributed to its meetings as 

well as to the preparation of the first data protection inspection, which took place at Eurojust in 

November 2005. Before the inspection the DPO carried out six pilot checks of national desks to 

help identify issues that might deserve further attention and reported the results of those checks 

to the College.

Legal Service

The Legal Service is the newest unit at Eurojust, and is still growing in order to cope with the 

increasing number of requests for legal advice from both the College and the administration.

For the College, the Legal Service provides information and advice on all kinds of legal issues, 

including EU policy and legislative work in the field of criminal matters and criminal procedural 

law. In this connection, the Legal Service closely follows the legislative process in the European 

Union and prepares the opinions for the College on legislative proposals discussed in the various 

bodies in Brussels which are of interest to Eurojust. The Legal Service also participates on behalf 

of  Eurojust  in  Council  Working  Groups.  It  serves  a  valuable  advisory  function  for  the  College 

teams and is frequently called upon by the Presidency to offer legal opinions on the interpretation 

of the Eurojust Decision and the Rules of Procedure.

For  the  administration,  the  Legal  Service  works  closely  with  the  Administrative  Director  and 

the other units. It continues in particular to play an advisory role to the Budget & Finance Unit 

(amongst  other  issues,  in  the  current  discussion  with  the  Commission  over  the  draft  Financial 

Regulation) and to the Human Resources Unit for which it has provided opinions on a range of 

matters  relating  to  the  interpretation  and  the  application  of  the  Staff  Regulations.  The  Legal 

Service is also responsible for litigation of cases.

The Legal Service maintains a vital position in the relationship between Eurojust and the Council, 

the  Commission  and  OLAF,  frequently  attending  meetings  in  Brussels  at  the  request  of,  and 

reporting  back  to,  the  College.  The  Legal  Service  also  enjoys  an  excellent  relationship  with 

Europol and its counterparts there. This relationship was strengthened by work on two projects 

relating  to  Joint  Investigation  Teams  (JITs)  in  which  the  Legal  Services  of  both  organisations 

played  an  important  role.  These  were  the  establishment  of  a  manual  of  all  national  legislation 

on JITs, and the organisation of the first meeting of the informal network of national experts on 

JITs (see Chapter 2).

80

The Legal Service has been instrumental in negotiations with the Host State on important issues, 

amongst  them  the  Lease  Contract,  the  Seat  Agreement  and  current  changes  in  provisions  on 

privileges and immunities.

Since January 2005 the Legal Service has taken over responsibility for the entire procurement 

process.  This  change  was  accompanied  by  a  strengthening  of  the  process,  and  revision  of 

procurement  procedures,  in  order  to  ensure  better  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the 

framework Financial Regulation, which is now being monitored closely.

Communication Management (Press & PR Service)

During 2005 the Press & PR Service developed further and continued to improve on Eurojust’s 

communication  policy,  raising  Eurojust’s  profile  in  the  EU  and  beyond.  The  Eurojust  Annual 

Report  2004  was  published  in  all  20  official  languages  of  the  European  Union;  12.000  copies 

were distributed.

Our  website,  www.eurojust.eu.int,  offers  information  to  co-operation  partners  and  to  the 

public.  In  September  2005  a  completely  revised  Eurojust  website  was  launched.  The  Eurojust 

website  counted  240.531  visits,  or  hits,  in  2005,  with  an  average  of  164  visitors  per  day.  The 

sources of these hits showed that 86% were international in origin and 14% originated in The 

Netherlands.

Eurojust’s Press & PR Service produced a first information brochure for visitors and the general 

public. So far 10.000 copies have been distributed. This brochure was first produced in English 

and will be available in 20 languages in 2006.

In  2005,  Eurojust  hosted  18  information  visits  by  groups  of  legal  professionals,  lawyers, 

professors and students from universities and law faculties from Member States, and also from 

Norway,  the  USA,  Canada  and  other  third  countries.  Visitors  tour  the  premises  and  receive  a 

presentation about Eurojust.

Eurojust  participated  in  two  DVD  productions,  "Terrorism  in  Europe:  what  are  the  answers?"  

and  "Welcome  in  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice",  both  produced  by  the  European 

Commission.  These  films  are  available  for  the  media  and  general  public.  A  CD-ROM  on  the 

implementation  of  the  EAW  was  produced  following  our  seminar  in  April  and  distributed  to 

practitioners throughout Europe.

81

The  Press  &  PR  Service  hosted  several  meetings  with  the  international  press.  Many  interviews 

were  organised  for  the  media  with  the  President  and  National  Members  both  at  Eurojust  and 

elsewhere to inform the press about the work and case-related achievements of Eurojust.

Security, Facility, General Services and Events Unit

As of 1 April 2005 a combined Security, Facility, General Services and Events Unit was created 

under the direction of the newly recruited Head of Unit. The decision was based on the fact that 

security  requirements  feature  centrally  in  all  aspects  of  facility  management,  general  services 

and events.

The Security Section maintains close co-operation with ICC security services to deal with physical 

security. A safe environment has been provided for all Eurojust’s activities whether held inside or 

outside its headquarters. Additionally great emphasis has been given to the further development 

of security procedures and policies that are to be adopted in 2006.

The  Facility  and  General  Services  Section  is  tasked  with  maintenance  of  the  existing  office 

building,  internal  office  relocations,  construction  of  new  offices  and  meeting  facilities  and 

logistical  and  driving  support.  In  addition,  it  has  been  instrumental  in  the  development  of  the 

Program  of  Requirements  for  the  new  Eurojust  premises  to  be  provided  by  the  Host  State  by 

2012,  when  our  current  lease  agreement  expires  and  Eurojust  will  have  outgrown  its  current 

premises.

Eurojust’s Events Section has successfully managed a significantly increased number of seminars, 

conferences,  strategic  and  co-ordination  meetings.  Such  management  is  a  complex  and  multi-

faceted logistical exercise involving the organisation of travel and accommodation arrangements 

for participants, contacting participants, arranging interpretation services and catering and also 

providing technical support and co-ordination for the meetings themselves.

College Secretariat

The  Secretary  to  the  College  was  recruited  in  2005  to  assist  the  College  by  preparing  and 

following  all  College  meetings,  taking  minutes,  keeping  a  record  of  College  documents,  and 

other  supporting  tasks.  The  Secretary  to  the  College  is  also  responsible  for  facilitating  links 

within the College and the relationships between the College and the administration. The College 

Secretariat initiated changes in 2005 that contributed substantially to improving the work of the 

8282

College, e.g., its archives, the organisation of its meetings and its daily running. The Secretary 

to the College was involved on the administration’s side and implemented initiatives to improve 

linkages to the College. Other significant events included the election of the President of Eurojust 

and a meeting of former College members in June.

Secretariat of the European Judicial Network (EJN)

In  addition  to  its  standard  tasks  aimed  at  facilitating  the  functioning  of  the  EJN,  in  2005  the 

activity of the EJN Secretariat was determined by two factors: the follow-up to the second EJN 

activity report 2002-2004 and the completion of the transfer of the Atlas and Solon websites.

For  the  former,  the  role  of  the  EJN  Secretariat  was  to  promote  the  internal  debate  on  the 

outcome,  mainly  on  the  issues  related  to  the  streamlining  of  the  decision-making  process  and 

the future developments of the EJN.

As for the latter, it should be noted that the two websites that existed previously were merged 

into  one  (www.ejn-crimjust.eu.int),  administered  by  the  EJN  Secretariat  together  with  the 

Eurojust  IT  Unit,  which  was  launched  publicly  on  1  July  2005.  Specific  action  was  taken  to 

analyse the quality and specify the requirements for further enhancement of the website, taking 

into consideration the information tools that have to be developed to enable EJN contact points 

to comply with the tasks imposed by the new legal instruments as well as the forthcoming EU 

enlargement.

Particular significance should be given to the establishment of the EJN/Liaison Magistrates Team, 

of which the EJN Secretary is a permanent member, as a means to channel and enhance effective 

co-operation with the College.

The 21st EJN meeting took place from 8 to 10 June 2005 in Luxembourg during the Luxembourg 

Presidency. Discussions focussed on the future developments of the EJN and as a result of the 

debate a document of conclusions was approved (doc 10070/05 EJN 35). The 22nd EJN meeting 

under  the  UK  Presidency  was  held  in  Edinburgh  from  5  to  7  December  2005.  Some  of  the 

main topics on the agenda were the functions and practice of the UK and Crown Dependencies’ 

institutions  in  the  area  of  judicial  co-operation,  the  experience  accumulated  in  relation  to  the 

operation of the latest EU legal instruments and the relationship with other EJN-style networks.

8383

Eurojust’s Administration

Eurojust’s  Heads  of  Units  and  Services:  Catherine  Deboyser,  Legal  Service; 

Jacques  Vos,  Security,  General  Services  &  Events;  Ernst  Merz,  Administrative 

Director;  Joannes  Thuy,  Press  Officer;  Nadine  Thwaites,  Secretary  to  the  College; 

Jon Broughton, Information Management; Elizabeth Casey, Budget & Finance; Angel 

Galgo,  EJN  Secretary;  Diana  Alonso  Blas,  Data  Protection  Officer.  (Fabian  Pereyra, 

Human Resources, is missing in the photo)

84

85

7   A S S E S S M E N T   O F   P E R F O R M A N C E   A G A I N S T 

O B J E C T I V E S   S E T   F O R   2 0 0 5

In this chapter we have detailed the objectives which were included in our Annual Report for 2004 

and which the College agreed Eurojust should seek to achieve in the calendar year 2005.

We think it is important that European Union organisations review the progress they have made 

each year. As we have done in previous Annual Reports we have made comments and an assessment 

to give our view of the performance we have achieved in 2005 against these objectives. 

OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

•  To  establish  a  new  structure  to  deliver  more 

Achieved.  A  new  team  structure  was  agreed  and 

efficient working methods drawing on the expertise 

an  outline  was  included  in  our  Annual  Report  for 

of all members of the College and the skills of the 

2004.  The  structure  was  put  in  place  and  was 

staff.

operational early in 2005.

•  To work to ensure the agreement with Europol 

Achieved,  at  least  in  part.  Our  relationship  with 

   operates well in practice.

Europol  has  grown  stronger  and  is  strengthening 

as time passes. There are very good relationships 

between  senior  management  and  between  the 

national  desks  in  both  organisations.  However 

there  is  a  need  to  look  at  ways  of  improving  the 

structural frameworks to allow both organisations 

to  work  together  more  effectively  on  specific 

cases.

•  To improve how we work with and influence OLAF,

Achieved.  There  have  been  very  positive  signs 

   drawing on the data protection rules.

of  improved  co-operation  during  the  year.  Still 

more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  really  effective 

joint  efforts  to  harness  the  capacities  of  both 

organisations  to  help  resolve  the  difficult  cases 

involving  fraud  on  the  Community  budget  which 

are referred to OLAF.

Late  in  2005  we  agreed  with  OLAF  to  explore 

the  possibility  of  concluding  a  formal  agreement 

under the provisions of Article 27 of the Eurojust 

Decision.

•  To define strategies for negotiation and priorities

Achieved. We supplied a list to the European Union 

   for establishing future agreements with third

Council  Secretariat  of  the  priority  countries  with 

   countries.

whom  we  would  seek  to  negotiate  co-operation 

agreements  during  the  year.  This  list  will  be 

reviewed regularly. During 2005 we concluded and 

signed  formal  agreements  with  the  Kingdom  of 

Norway, with Romania and with Iceland.

8686

OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

•  To  develop  a  strategic  approach  to  handling

Achieved,  although,  so  long  as  Eurojust  exists, 

casework, to include:

this will be a continuing objective:

a)  Prioritising  action  and  enhancing  our  capacity  to 

a)  We  have  focussed,  with  successes  detailed 

deal with terrorism;

in  this  report,  on  improving  our  specialist 

b)  Refocussing  our  marketing  or  case  harvesting 

b)  Case  referrals  have  improved  by  54%.  We 

strategy  to  get  a  better  picture  of  why  Eurojust 

still  need  to  attract  more  case  referrals  and 

does not attract more case referrals;

we  have  held  marketing  seminars  and  other 

response through the Terrorism Team;

events  in  EU  states  where  we  felt  there  was 

room for improvement;

c)  Identifying where the blockages to referral occur 

c)  We always seek to identify MLA blockages and 

and why; and

we provide some more detailed information in 

d)  Making Member States more aware of Eurojust’s

d)  We  used  every  opportunity  to  raise  levels 

Annex II of this report; and

added value.  

of  awareness  about  Eurojust’s  work.  The 

increase  in  caseload  reflects  success  in  this 

respect. We should use our Press Office more 

to  develop  media  relations  and  raise  our 

profile.

•  To  devise  methods  of  improving  Eurojust’s

Achieved and continuing.

performance by:

a) Evaluating the role of Eurojust;

a)  An  evaluation  by  way  of  a  Consumer 

b) Establishing a performance management system; 

b)  &  c)  Guidelines  have  been  introduced  to 

and

govern  the  opening  of  case  files  with  time 

c) Setting performance measures.

limits  for  action.  Performance  parameters 

Satisfaction  Exercise  was  completed  during 

2005.  Details  can  be  found  in  Annex  III  of 

this report.

have  also  been  designed  and  introduced. 

The  European  Union  Internal  Audit  Service 

has provided a report and guidance, which is 

being followed.

•  To  become  more  proactive  in  influencing  EU 

Achieved,  at  least  in  part,  and  continuing. 

criminal justice policy, legislation and key decision 

Represented  by  members  of  the  College  and/or 

makers.

members of the Legal Service, Eurojust participates 

regularly  in  policymaking  meetings  in  various 

Justice  and  Home  Affairs  groups  in  Brussels. 

Eurojust  is  now  consulted  by  the  Commission 

and  others,  allowing  us  to  respond  and  make 

comments on drafts prepared to propose new EU 

legislation.

87
87

OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

•  To  increase  the  knowledge  and  competences

Achieved  in  part  and  continuing.  Personal  skills 

of  members  of  the  College  and  Eurojust  staff  by 

development  and  other  training  programmes 

developing our training capacity.

covering  a  range  of  professional  and  personal 

skills  have  been  offered  to  the  College  and  the 

administrative  staff  during  the  year.  Language 

training has been expanded to include, in addition 

to  Dutch  and  French  courses,  business  English 

and  legal  English.  Other  courses  offered  included 

management  training,  specialised  sessions  for 

the IM and Budget & Finance Units, procurement, 

international  negotiations,  and  driver  safety 

training. In addition, several workshops have been 

organised  in-house,  such  as  CMS,  Excel  and  the 

new  financial  workflow.  A  wider  range  of  training 

courses will be offered next year.

•   To continue our work to improve the effective prac-

Achieved.  Resolving  problems  surrounding  the 

tical operation of the European Arrest Warrant.

EAW  continues  to  constitute  a  significant  part  of 

our work. We held a successful seminar specifically 

for  EAW  practitioners  in  May  2005  and  if  needed 

we will hold further seminars in the future.

•  To  develop  effective  management  support 

Achieved in part and continuing.

systems  for  casework  and  enhanced  and

Enhanced support for casework and data protection 

secure ICT functionality.

responsibilities  has  been  provided  by  the  new 

version  of  the  case  management  system  under 

the E-POC Project. In 2005 the case management 

system (CMS) was developed to provide a secure 

facility.

•  To  research  and  set  a  longer-term  vision  for 

Achieved.  Details  of  our  Vision  are  set  out  in 

Eurojust.

Chapter 9 of this report.

88

 
8   E U R O J U S T ’ S   O B J E C T I V E S   F O R   2 0 0 6

Our  yearly  planning  event  has  become  a  key  part  of  Eurojust’s  annual  work  programme.  Over 

50 people took part in the 2005 event which was held at Sluis in The Netherlands in October. It 

was  attended  by  National  Members,  Deputies  and  Assistants,  together  with  the  Administrative 

Director  and,  for  the  first  time,  by  the  Heads  of  Units  within  the  administration.  Once  again 

we  are  very  grateful  to  the  Crown  Prosecution  Service  of  England  and  Wales  for  allowing 

representatives  from  its  Business  Improvement  Division,  led  by  Bob  Capstick,  to  assist  us  and 

to facilitate this important work.

We discussed and assessed our performance in 2005 against the objectives that we had set in 

2004  for  calendar  year  2005.  We  also  reviewed  the  effectiveness  of  the  new  structure  of  21 

teams  which  we  introduced  at  the  beginning  of  2005  and  set  out  a  framework  for  a  revised 

approach  and,  drawing  on  our  experience,  suggested  a  framework  for  improved  efficiency  by 

reducing the number of teams.

Additionally we completed our main task of discussing and agreeing objectives for 2006. These 

objectives fall into three main categories: Casework Objectives, Internal Objectives and External 

Objectives.

Casework Objectives

The College agreed the following key objectives for its work in 2005:

1.  To develop a uniform policy for handling casework;

2.  To enhance Eurojust’s action and capacity to deal with terrorist casework and policy 

issues related to terrorism;

3.  To seek to use and exercise more frequently Eurojust’s formal powers under Articles 

6 and 7 of the Eurojust Decision;

4.  To  review  the  effectiveness  of  hosting  strategic  meetings  on  specific  casework 

topics;

5.  To continue to strengthen our marketing and case harvesting strategy with the aim of 

attracting more case referrals;

6.  To  draw  on  our  experience  and  information  retained  by  Eurojust  to  generate  and 

initiate our own cases; and

7.  To  improve  our  follow-up  and  encourage  action  where  mutual  legal  assistance  and 

other judicial co-operation blockages have been identified.

9090

Internal Objectives

1.  To improve Eurojust’s performance by:

    •  Establishing a proper performance management system;

    •  Setting up performance standards; and

    •  Raising Eurojust’s profile by more proactive use of the Press Office;

2.  To establish a development planning system by:

    •  Combining the Eurojust Vision with our objectives; and

    •  Setting up an activity planning, prioritisation and monitoring system;

3.  To work with practitioners to improve the implementation and operational effectiveness 

of European Union instruments such as the European Arrest Warrant, Joint Investigation 

Teams and, when it is in force, the European Evidence Warrant;

4.  To develop and foster a skills and knowledge development policy within Eurojust;

5.  To  develop  the  ICT  management  support  for  casework,  the  secure  network  and  the 

document management system;

6.  To  review  and,  if  necessary,  modify  the  long  term  Vision  for  the  future  of  Eurojust; 

and

7.  To  seek  to  secure  the  best  possible  permanent  housing  solution  for  Eurojust  in  The 

Hague.

External Objectives

1.  To continue working to improve our co-operation with:

    •  The European Judicial Network (EJN);

    •  Europol; and

    •  Office européen de lutte anti-fraude (OLAF);

2.  To  continue  to  seek  to  influence,  using  our  own  and  practitioners’  experience,  the 

development of criminal justice policy within the EU;

3.  To develop strategies to deal effectively with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria 

to the European Union; and

4.  To review, and, if necessary, revise our priorities for, the negotiation of co-operation 

agreements with non-EU states.   

9191

93

9   V I S I O N

One of our objectives for 2005 was to research and define our Vision for the future of Eurojust. 

We considered this issue during our planning event in October but decided to devote a day in 

November  to  specific  and  detailed  consideration  of  the  subject.  During  that  day  the  College, 

assisted by senior members of the Eurojust administration, defined the Mission and our Vision 

of  Eurojust  for  the  future.  We  also  set  out  a  number  of  subsidiary  objectives  which  we  felt 

should be put in place to ensure that the objectives are achieved in the course of time.

Our Mission

Eurojust  is  a  judicial  co-operation  body  created  to  help  provide  a  "high  level  of  safety 

within an area of freedom, security and justice" (Arts. 29 and 31 of the Treaty on European 

Union).

Our Vision

"To  be  the  key  player  and  centre  of  excellence  at  a  judicial  level  for  effective  action  against 

organised cross-border crime in the EU."

Objectives and Tasks Required to Achieve Eurojust’s Mission and Vision1

1. Strengthen European judicial co-operation and co-ordination in cases of serious cross-border 

crime:

1.1.  Strive  for  excellence  in  the  assistance  and  facilitation  that  Eurojust  offers  to  national

 authorities to:

•  Have efficient College and administration working procedures, including a strong 

and secure IT infrastructure;

•  Give effective administrative, legal and practical support to the operational work 

of National Members;

•  Deliver effective and quick results;

• 

In particular, ensure speed in the execution of letters of request;

•  Develop and improve the effectiveness of the CMS;

•  Ensure  adequate  secure  permanent  headquarters  accommodation  in  premises 

that provide suitable facilities for Eurojust; and

•  Provide legal, technical and other support (also remotely in Member States when 

necessary).

1  The specific "activities" (which should go under "tasks") should be discussed and agreed by the College. There should also 
be a name/team/unit or service next to each of these specific activities as well as a deadline.

94

1.2.  Insist  on  a  cross-border  approach  when  investigating  and  prosecuting  serious  organised 

crime to:

•  Demonstrate Eurojust’s added value in this regard;

•  Proactively generate multilateral co-ordination meetings;

•  Recommend measures to overcome obstacles in MLA;

•  Go  further  than  facilitating  MLA:  monitor,  co-ordinate  and  initiate  cases  in  the 

Member States, and possibly order investigations and prosecutions; and

•  Ensure and implement Eurojust’s access to the SIS.

1.3. Influence policy law-makers or other appropriate authorities in the Member States to:

•  Encourage sufficient infrastructure in the Member States;

•  Encourage  the  Member  States  to  provide  a  sufficient  number  of  Assistants  and 

other necessary support to the National Members; and

•  Encourage  Member  States  to  set  up  centralised  specialist  units  for  dealing  with 

serious organised crime (including terrorism) to ensure adequate communication 

of information with/to Eurojust and other support facilities.

1.4. Inspire trust and confidence in the countries served by Eurojust to:

•  Strengthen ties and communication with national authorities;

•  Apply, improve and demonstrate the effectiveness of the Eurojust data protection 

regime;

•  Consider, where useful, developing national support "offices" taking into account 

the role of EJN contact points with an enhanced role for national correspondents 

operating as centralised national assistants in Member States to ensure casework 

support  for  National  Members  and  to  improve  as  well  as  increase  Eurojust’s 

efficiency; and

•  Provide transparent performance management and evaluation systems.

1.5. Publicise Eurojust’s successes:

•  Publish details of quick and effective results.

1.6. Strive for a uniform level of powers for Eurojust’s National Members.

1.7. Take the lead in identifying cross-border cases and be proactive in taking the initiative to 

generate  Eurojust’s  own  cases  in  order  to  ensure  that  cross-border  criminals  are  brought 

to justice.

95

1.8. Ensure Eurojust’s capacity to direct action via directing prosecutions and investigations 

and be involved as regards terrorism, the EAW, JITs and possibly a European register 

on convictions to:

•  Gradually develop and improve Eurojust’s operational powers in general and, in 

particular, have the flexibility of structure and systems to become, if required, a 

European Public Prosecutor; and

•  Give legal, technical and other support to JITs.

1.9. Work together with Europol to ensure a more effective interaction with the organisation.

1.10. Work together with other related EU bodies and structures such as the EJN and OLAF.

1.11.  Develop  Eurojust’s  training  capacity  for  prosecutors  and  investigators  in  co-operation 

 with the EJTN, CEPOL and others.

2. Influence EU law-making:

2.1. Follow up legislative developments in Brussels.

2.2. Co-operate closely with the Commission, Council and European Parliament in order to have 

input regarding proposed justice and MLA instruments and other Eurojust-related legislative 

initiatives.

2.3. In particular, ensure close links with CATS, with JHA counsellors in Brussels and other  

influential political structures.

2.4. Be the voice of practitioners to law-makers in order to influence new legislation as well as 

improve and amend existing legislation.

3. Become the key European player regarding co-operation with third countries and other  

bodies:

3.1. Conclude and/or strengthen agreements with third countries, in particular with relevant 

neighbouring European states and other key countries.

3.2. Conclude agreements and strengthen links with other bodies such as the DEA and ICC.

3.3. Develop and strengthen contacts with relevant non-EU institutions.

96

4. Ensure that the College and the administration work together to achieve excellence as well  

as better efficiency and continuity:

4.1. Enhance and maximise resources to meet objectives.

4.2. Improve communication and clarify roles.

97

1 0     E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y   A N D   C O N C L U S I O N S

During 2005 Eurojust consolidated its position internally as an organisation and also externally 

where it strengthened its role as a major EU player in the fight against international cross-border 

crime. This chapter provides a summary of the achievements which are described in more detail 

in other chapters of the Annual Report 2005. The achievements can be summarised under three 

main headings: Casework, External Relationships and Internal Issues.

Casework

•   There  were  588  cases  referred  to  Eurojust  in  2005.  This  was  a  significant  and  very 

pleasing increase of 207 cases, or 54% more cases, than the number of cases referred 

to Eurojust in 2004.

•   The number of co-ordination meetings also increased from 52 in 2004 to 73 in 2005, 

or an increase of 40%.

•   The investigating and prosecuting authorities from the ten Member States who joined 

the EU in May 2004 are beginning to work more closely with Eurojust. We are pleased 

with the increasing number of cases generated through their National Members.

•   There have been some very significant successes in individual cases which are outlined 

in the chapter on casework. On some occasions trans-national criminal networks have 

been completely dismantled.

•   During  the  year  the  College  exercised  its  powers  under  Article  7  of  the  Eurojust 

Decision, which enables the College to make formal requests to national authorities to 

act. One case referred to Eurojust concerned the extensive oil pollution in the Bay of 

Biscay, along large areas of the French and Spanish coastline, caused by the sinking 

of the tanker Prestige. Criminal investigations in France and Spain were considered by 

the College before Eurojust made a formal request to the Spanish authorities to take 

over and prosecute the case in Spain. The case was extremely sensitive and involved 

numerous  victims  who  had  suffered  considerable  losses.  We  were  pleased  that  the 

Spanish  authorities  agreed  to  take  on  the  French  aspects  of  the  case  and  that  the 

French investigators agreed to co-operate fully with their Spanish counterparts.

•   In another case, initiated by the UK, the College made a formal request to Spain to 

investigate  an  allegation  of  serious  fraud  that  the  Spanish  prosecuting  authorities 

agreed to consider acting upon.

98

•   Although the significant increase in caseload is very encouraging and the development 

of  other  aspects  of  casework  is  positive,  we  still  feel  that  there  are  more  cases 

which  could  be  referred  to  our  Unit.  We  will  continue  to  market  Eurojust,  to  build 

mutual trust and confidence in the criminal justice systems of the EU and to urge the 

investigating  and  prosecuting  authorities  in  the  Member  States  to  refer  problematic 

cross-border cases to us.

•   We  have  continued  to  build  our  capacity  to  support  and  enhance  the  networks  of 

specialist  investigators  and  prosecutors  who  deal  with  terrorism  matters  in  Member 

States. We have helped to prevent at least one terrorist attack by bringing together 

those  responsible  in  several  states  and  facilitating  the  exchange  of  information  and 

co-ordinated  activity.  We  have  also  held  meetings  with  and  strengthened  links  to 

states outside the EU, including the USA and several North African states.

•   Through its specialist Terrorism Team the College increased its anti-terrorist activity. 

Several  meetings  were  held  to  deal  with  specific  terrorist  cases  and  also  at  a 

more  strategic  level.  Both  the  quality  of  the  exchanges  in  these  meetings  and  the 

outcomes  are  improving.  There  were  a  number  of  positive  results,  including,  as  we 

have  mentioned,  at  least  one  example  of  Eurojust  contributing  to  an  attack  being 

thwarted.

•   We urge all Member States to ensure that their national correspondents, nominated 

by  the  Member  States  to  provide  closer  co-operation  and  information  to  Eurojust 

on  terrorism  matters,  deliver  on  the  commitment  made  by  ministers  in  the  Council 

Decision of 20 September 2005 to provide Eurojust with a range of specific information 

on terrorist activity.

External Relationships

•   Links  to  countries  outside  the  EU  were  strengthened  as  their  terrorism  authorities 

engaged  more  frequently  with  Eurojust.  Several  attended  meetings  hosted  by 

Eurojust, including the USA, Canada and, we are pleased to say, some North African 

states.

•   During 2005 formal co-operation agreements were approved by the Council and were 

signed with Norway, Iceland and Romania.

99

•   Negotiations have started and are continuing with the USA and Switzerland. We have 

made  arrangements  to  open  negotiations  with  the  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine  and 

Croatia in early 2006.

•   Our  relationship  with  Europol  is  growing  and  strengthening  and,  although  progress 

has been good, there is still more to do. Measures to introduce a secure link between 

both organisations are well advanced and should be in place by mid-2006. We would 

like to see improvements in the internal management structure of Europol to enable 

the  willingness  for  more  effective  co-operation,  which  is  clearly  evident  in  both  our 

organisations, to be delivered more quickly in practice.

•   The  relationship  between  the  EJN  and  Eurojust  remains  strong.  The  EJN  continues 

to  be  Eurojust’s  primary  EU  organisational  partner  in  the  judicial  co-operation 

environment.

•   Our relationship with OLAF improved considerably in 2005. The co-operation secured 

through our team dedicated to improving our relationship with OLAF has paid some 

dividends. A meeting between the Director of OLAF and the College led to a renewed 

agenda, inter alia, to take forward the relationship including a timetable to negotiate 

the replacement of the memorandum of understanding with a formal agreement.

Internal Issues

•   All  the  states  that  joined  the  enlarged  EU  in  2004  have  now  nominated  National 

Members who attend Eurojust regularly.

•   During the year Eurojust established a new team structure to meet the objectives that 

were  set  for  2005.  This  improved  efficiency  but  further  refinements  were  discussed 

and the structure was reviewed as part of Eurojust’s planning regime. Consequently a 

revised structure with a reduced number of teams will be introduced in early 2006.

•   The Eurojust IM Unit delivered the new Case Management System (CMS), which was 

put  into  effect.  National  Members  and  staff  were  trained  to  ensure  it  is  operated 

with maximum efficiency and in accordance with data protection rules. The E-POC II 

Project was completed.

•   The rules of procedure on the processing and protection of personal data, unanimously 

adopted by the College during the meeting of 21 October 2004, were approved by the 

Council on 24 February 2005 (OJ C 68, 19 March 2005).

100

•   A survey and comparison of the powers granted to all Eurojust National Members was 

prepared  and  sent  to  the  Council  in  July  2005.  We  feel  there  is  a  strong  case  to  be 

made for all National Members to be granted a similar range of powers. This will, inter 

alia, help to bring a consistency of approach and capacity when handling casework.

•   In  our  Annual  Report  for  2004  we  outlined  our  objectives  for  the  year  2005  and 

in  Chapter  7  we  have  made  an  assessment  and  measurement  of  our  performance 

against those objectives. The vast majority of the objectives were achieved at least in 

part. Work on some of the objectives will continue during the coming year. We have 

set out our objectives for 2006 in Chapter 8.

•   The Eurojust administrative staff structure has continued to develop and posts have 

been filled in accordance with projections and the establishment plan approved by the 

College, the European Parliament and the Council.

•   In  our  2004  Annual  Report  we  registered  our  disappointment  at  not  being  able  to 

complete  (1)  a  Seat  Agreement,  to  formalise  our  organisational  status  and  that  of 

the  College  and  of  Eurojust  staff  working  in  The  Hague;  and  (2)  a  Lease  Contract, 

to  regulate  the  occupancy  of  our  office  premises  with  our  Dutch  hosts.  Both  these 

negotiations  have  been  completed  in  December  2005  and  formal  documentation 

should be signed early in 2006.

•   During  2005  some  pressure  was  put  on  Eurojust  by  the  continued  expansion  of  our 

neighbour,  the  International  Criminal  Court  (ICC).  We  are  very  pleased  with  our 

current  accommodation  and  particularly  the  excellent  meeting  facilities  created  by 

our  Dutch  hosts.  The  growth  in  caseload  and  staff  and  the  enlargement  of  the  EU 

has meant that we could not agree to suggestions that we could give up some of our 

floor space  to the  ICC.  These  views were confirmed, and we believe accepted, by a 

delegation  nominated  by  the  UN  Committee  of  States  Parties,  which  met  with  the 

Eurojust Presidency in December 2005.

•   During  the  year  we  had  some  informal  discussions  with  the  Dutch  authorities  to 

determine  the  feasibility  of  adapting  the  planned  new  premises  for  Europol,  due  for 

completion  in  2009,  to  include  Eurojust.  Both  Eurojust  and  Europol  were  eager  to 

explore  the  possibility  of  locating  both  organisations  on  the  same  site  in  order  to 

gain  the  obvious  advantages  this  arrangement  would  bring.  Unfortunately  planning 

restrictions,  the  well-advanced  preparation  for  the  new  Europol  premises  and  costs 

have  prevented  this  from  happening.  We  have  emphasized  that  any  future  Eurojust 

premises should be located in very close proximity to Europol.

101

1 1     A N N E X E S

National Members 

ANNEX I

Michael  Kennedy  is  President  of  the  College  and  National  Member  for  the  UK.  He 

has more than 20 years of experience as a prosecutor. He has dealt with a wide range 

of  serious  cases  at  the  headquarters  of  the  Crown  Prosecution  Service  where  he  was 

also the Head of the International Branch handling MLA and extradition matters. Before 

joining Eurojust he was the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Sussex in England.

Ulrike  Haberl-Schwarz  is  National  Member  for  Austria  and  Vice-President.  She 

started  her  career  as  a  judge  in  Salzburg  in  1990.  When  dealing  with  major  economic 

and financial crime cases as an investigating judge for six years she gained experience 

both in international co-operation matters and in organised crime. She joined Eurojust in 

January 2003. She was elected Vice-President in January 2004.

Roelof-Jan  Manschot  is  National  Member  for  The  Netherlands  and  Vice-President. 

He has more than 30 years’ experience as a prosecutor. He was advocate-general at the 

Court of Appeal in Amsterdam from 1985 where he worked specifically on organised and 

financial crime. He was appointed as a Chief Prosecutor in 1995 and he joined Eurojust 

in June 2001. He was elected Vice-President in September 2004.

Michèle  Coninsx  is  National  Member  for  Belgium.  She  has  more  than  15  years’ 

experience as a prosecutor. She worked for nine years for the International Civil Aviation 

Organisation  and  was  responsible  for  anti-terrorism  relating  to  aircraft  sabotage  and 

hijacking. Before joining Eurojust she was a National Prosecutor in Belgium dealing with 

terrorism and organised crime.

Pavel Zeman is National Member for the Czech Republic. He is a prosecutor with the 

Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office in Brno. Before he was appointed National Member at 

Eurojust, he worked in the international department of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s 

Office, dealing with cases of international legal assistance.

Johan Reimann is National Member for Denmark. He has worked for 25 years in the 

Danish judiciary, inter alia, as a prosecutor with the district attorneys of Copenhagen and 

of Zealand, as head of the police office in the Ministry of Justice and as a police auditor. 

Prior to his appointment to Eurojust he was deputy permanent secretary in the Ministry 

of Justice with responsibility for the general administration of budget and personnel for 

the Danish police and prosecutions.

102102

Hermann  von  Langsdorff  is  National  Member  for  Germany.  He  has  30  years’ 
experience as judge and prosecutor. Before becoming the National Member for Germany 

he worked as a Federal Prosecutor dealing with terrorism and espionage cases.

Raivo Sepp is National Member for Estonia. He has 15 years’ experience in the judiciary. 

He  started  his  career  in  the  prosecution  service  as  an  investigator.  He  has  also  worked 

as the Director of the Pre-trial Investigation Bureau. Later, he was the Police Chief of the 

county and the Deputy Director General of the Police Board. He served for five years as 

the Prosecutor General of the Republic.

Lampros  Patsavellas  is  National  Member  for  Greece.  He  worked  in  private  practice  as  a 

lawyer before entering the Greek judiciary in 1997. He served as a Deputy Public Prosecutor in 

Corfu and in Athens. He taught criminal law for two years at the Police School for specialised 

training in Athens. He has been a Greek representative at both the UN Criminal Law Convention 

on Corruption in Vienna and in the Council of Europe (GRECO subcommittee against corruption). 

In 2003 he was a member of the Greek Presidency of the EU in the Substantive Criminal Law 

Working Group in Brussels. Until his secondment to Eurojust in June 2005 he was the Head of 

Unit for information systems in the Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of First Instance in Athens.

Ruben Jiménez Fernández is National Member for Spain. He was appointed as an 

examining judge in 1973. In 1996 he was appointed and served for six years as a member 

of the General Council of the Spanish Judiciary. While in this post he was responsible for 

organising the EJN in Spain.

François  Falletti  is  National  Member  for  France.  He  has  27  years  of  experience  as  a 

prosecutor  acting  in  court  and  at  the  French  Ministry  of  Justice  where  he  was  Directeur 

des  affaires  criminelles  et  des  graces  from  1993  to  1996  before  being  appointed  Chief 

Prosecutor  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  of  Lyon,  where  he  stayed  until  he  joined  Eurojust  in 

September 2004. In his former positions he was in charge of a very wide range of cases 

and issues especially related to economic offences and MLA. He has also been involved in 

organisations of prosecutors acting at both European and international level.

Jarlath  Spellman  is  National  Member  for  Ireland.  He  was  called  to  the  Irish  Bar  in 

1992 and practiced as a barrister for a number of years. He worked as Advisory Counsel 

at the Office of the Attorney General in the Justice and Home Affairs area. In 2001 he was 

appointed a Professional Officer at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has 

had experience in the prosecution of a wide range of serious criminal offences as well as 

dealing with mutual legal assistance and extradition.

103103

Cesare Martellino is National Member for Italy. He started his career as a prosecutor 

in 1969. Until 1988 he acted as deputy prosecutor in Rome and later as Chief Prosecutor 

in Terni. During his career he has dealt with sensitive cases concerning organised crime, 

corruption, murder and kidnapping. In Italy he is currently also entrusted with a significant 

role as a judge in the area of sports justice.

Katerina  Loizou  is  National  Member  for  Cyprus.  She  worked  in  private  practice  as  a 

lawyer before entering the Attorney General’s Office in 2002. She served as a counsel of 

the Republic in Nicosia until her secondment to Eurojust in September 2004.

Gunãrs Bundzis is National Member for Latvia. He has 11 years of experience as a prosecutor. 

Before joining the Prosecution Service, he worked for the Criminal Police for several years. He began 

work at the Prosecutor General’s Office as senior assistant. Subsequently he was appointed as Chief 

Prosecutor in one of the districts of Latvia. He continued to work at the Prosecutor General’s Office 

as Chief Prosecutor in the methodology division and later in the international co-operation division, 

dealing with co-operation in criminal matters related to extradition, transfer of proceedings and of 

sentenced persons as well as mutual legal assistance.

Rolandas  Tilindis  is  National  Member  for  Lithuania.  He  started  his  career  as  an 

investigator in 1991 in the Investigation Departments within the Ministry of Internal Affairs 

and the Lithuanian Prosecutor General‘s Office. In 1995 he was appointed as a prosecutor 

in  the  Organised  Crime  and  Corruption  Investigation  Department  of  the  Prosecutor 

General‘s  Office  and  dealt  with  sensitive  cases  of  wide  public  interest,  also  related  to 

international organised crime. Before joining Eurojust in May 2004, he was a contact point 

for the Prosecutor‘s Office.

Georges  Heisbourg  is  National  Member  for  Luxembourg.  He  has  been  a  member 

of  the  judiciary  in  Luxembourg  since  1976.  He  has  worked  for  more  than  20  years  as 

a  prosecutor.  He  was  appointed  a  deputy  chief  prosecutor  in  1993  and  was  head  of  the 

organised  crime  branch  in  charge  of  major  money  laundering  cases  and  international 

judicial co-operation matters.

Ilona Lévai is National Member for Hungary. She is a career prosecutor, having gained 

experience at all levels of Public Prosecution during her more than 25 years of professional 

life. Since 1990 she has been working for the Office of the Prosecutor General of Hungary. 

Before  joining  Eurojust  she  was  Director  General  for  International  and  European  Affairs 

for  six  years.  She  had,  amongst  others,  a  nationwide  responsibility  for  preparing  the 

Prosecution Service for the EU accession. In 2003, she was awarded with the Order of Merit 

Cross by the President of the Republic.

104104

Donatella  Frendo  Dimech  is  National  Member  for  Malta.  She  joined  the  Attorney 

General’s Office as a Prosecutor in 1997 and since 2000 she has been dealing with money 

laundering as well as being responsible for international mutual judicial co-operation and 

extradition. As Senior Counsel to the Republic of Malta she is also the Maltese contact point 

in the European Judicial Network.

Mariusz  Skowroński  is  National  Member  for  Poland.  He  has  over  20  years’  experience 

as a prosecutor at various levels of the prosecution service in Poland. He dealt with corruption 

and organised crime in the Investigation Division of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office and in the 

Court Unit of Appellate Prosecutor’s Office in Lodz. In 1996 he was appointed to the Bureau for 

Organised Crime in the National Prosecutor’s Office within the Ministry of Justice. Before joining 

Eurojust, he was the co-ordinator for negotiation of two United Nations Conventions. On behalf of 

the Ministry of Justice he was also responsible for co-operation with UN offices in Vienna dealing 

with organised crime and in New York dealing with illegal smuggling of firearms and explosives.

José  Luis  Lopes  da  Mota  is  National  Member  for  Portugal.  He  has  more  than  25 

years’  experience  in  the  judiciary  as  a  prosecutor  and  as  an  assistant  to  the  Portuguese 

Prosecutor  General  where  he  was  responsible  for  matters  related  to  management  of 

the  prosecution  services  at  a  national  level  and  for  international  co-operation.  He  was  a 

lecturer at the Portuguese national school for magistrates and a deputy Minister of Justice 

in charge of a range of issues including European affairs. 

Malči Gabrijelčič is National Member for the Republic of Slovenia. She has more than 

20 years’ experience as a state prosecutor on the first level in the prosecution service. As 

a  high  state  prosecutor,  she  has  worked  in  Nova  Gorica  Circuit  State  Prosecutor’s  Office 

dealing with economic crimes. In 1997 she was appointed as Head of the Office.

Peter Paluda is National Member for the Slovak Republic. He has worked for 22 years in 

the Slovak judiciary. He has 12 years’ experience as a prosecutor. He worked in the District 

and Regional Prosecutor’s Office in the Banská Bystrica in Middle Slovakia until 1987. From 

1987  until  May  1994,  he  worked  for  the  General  Prosecution  Office  in  Bratislava.  At  the 

time of his appointment to Eurojust, he was serving as a judge dealing with criminal cases 

in the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic.

Maarit  Loimukoski  is  National  Member  for  Finland.  She  has  more  than  15  years’ 

experience as a district prosecutor in Helsinki. In 1999 she was appointed by the Prosecutor 

General’s  Office  as  a  State  Prosecutor,  specialising  in  organised  crime.  Prior  to  her 

appointment to Eurojust she was working at the Registry of the European Court of Human 

Rights in Strasbourg and as a counsellor in Brussels at the Permanent Representation to 

the EU on criminal and judicial co-operation matters.

105105

Deputies

Solveig  Wollstad  is  National  Member  for  Sweden.  She  has  over  15  years’ 
experience as a prosecutor dealing, inter alia, with organised drug-related and other 

serious  crime  cases.  Before  becoming  the  National  Member  for  Sweden  she  was  a 

Chief  Public  Prosecutor  in  Sweden  and  head  of  the  international  unit  of  the  Public 

Prosecution  Authority  in  Linköping,  Sweden.  She  was  also  a  Swedish  EJN  contact 

point. 

Jürgen  Kapplinghaus  is  Deputy  National  Member  for  Germany.  He  has  more  than 
29  years’  experience  at  different  levels  in  the  prosecution  service.  From  1975  to  1989 

he was a local prosecutor and then he spent 10 years at the General Prosecutor’s Office. 

Between  1999  and  2001  he  was  attached  to  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  North  Rhine-

Westphalia. Overall he has specialised for more than 15 years in Mutual Legal Assistance 

and combating organised crime. Before joining Eurojust in 2001 he was Head of Division 

in the Ministry responsible for MLA and extradition matters.

Jean-Francois  Bohnert  is  Deputy  National  Member  for  France.  He  has  19  years’ 
experience in the French judiciary. He began his career as a prosecutor in Strasburg and 

worked afterwards as an investigating magistrate at the French military court in Germany. 

Subsequently for nearly five years he was the French liaison magistrate in Germany based 

in Bonn and later in Berlin.

Carmen  Manfredda  is  Deputy  National  Member  for  Italy.  She  has  30  years’ 
experience in the fight against organised crime. Prior to joining Eurojust she worked as 

public prosecutor in Milan and afterwards as Chief Prosecutor in Vigevano.

Jolien  Kuitert  is  Deputy  National  Member  for  The  Netherlands.  She  is  a  Public 
Prosecutor based in the National Public Prosecutor’s Office in The Netherlands where she 

deals with international co-operation in the field of combating organised crime. She is also 

the contact point for the Public Prosecutors Office in the European Judicial Network.

106

António Luis Santos Alves is Deputy National Member for Portugal. He has more 
than 15 years’ experience at different levels in the Public Prosecution Service. From 2000 

to  2002  he  was  a  General  Inspector  for  the  Environment  and  between  2003  and  May 

2004 he was a Counsellor in the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European 

Union.

Sanna Palo is Deputy National Member for Finland. She is a Finnish police officer with 
a legal background. She was a legal secretary in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for two 

years and a judge in criminal cases for a year in Helsinki. She has also spent four years 

in Helsinki working on mutual legal assistance matters at the Finnish National Bureau of 

Investigation.

Annette  von  Sydow  has  been  Deputy  National  Member  for  Sweden  since  1 
September  2005.  She  has  been  a  prosecutor  for  thirty  years  and  specialised  in  serious 

economic  cases  when  she  worked  in  the  Economic  Crimes  Bureau.  She  worked  for  the 

Council of Europe in the fight against corruption in Albania and helped to train prosecutors 

and judges in the Baltic countries. She also spent one year in Georgia working in a Rule 

of Law Mission established by the EU. She has several years of experience in international 

co-operation as a chief prosecutor at the Office of the Prosecutor General in Sweden.

Rajka  Vlahovic  is  Deputy  National  Member  for  the  United  Kingdom.  She  has  12 
years’ experience as a prosecutor in central London and is a Higher Court Advocate. At 

the Crown Prosecution Service she dealt with a wide range of serious cases including the 

prosecution  of  war  crimes.  Prior  to  joining  Eurojust  she  was  at  Her  Majesty’s  Customs 

and  Excise  Solicitor’s  Office  where  she  was  responsible  for  international  mutual  legal 

assistance and extradition cases.

Assistants

Susanne  Stotz  is  Assistant  to  the  National  Member  for  Germany.  From  1999  she 
worked for the German judiciary in Bavaria where she started as a prosecutor. After four 

years in the department for economic and financial crime, she became a judge in 2003 

as member of a jury court for capital crime. As she was located in north-eastern Bavaria 

close  to  eastern  European  countries  she  came  into  contact,  particularly  with  Czech 

colleagues, when handling mutual legal assistance cases and bilateral co-operation. She 

has been working for the German desk at Eurojust since January 2005.

107

Anne Delahaie is Assistant to the National Member for France. She has a background 
in the Ministry of Justice since 1979, graduating in law in 1986. In the Ministry of Justice 

she was involved in international judicial co-operation in criminal matters and in bilateral 

and  multilateral  negotiations  (Schengen,  EU,  Council  of  Europe,  and  the  UN).  She  has 

been an Assistant to the French National Member of Eurojust since 2001.

Ann  den  Bieman  is  Assistant  to  the  National  Member  for  the  UK.  She  has  been  a 
prosecutor  with  Scotland’s  prosecuting  authority,  the  Procurator  Fiscal  Service,  since 

1996.  In  March  2000  she  was  seconded  to  The  Netherlands  as  one  of  the  prosecutors 

involved  in  the  Lockerbie  trial.  She  subsequently  joined  Eurojust,  where  she  works  as 

Assistant to the National Member for the United Kingdom.

Liaison Prosecutor

Knut H. Kallerud is Norwegian Liaison Prosecutor to Eurojust. Prior to his appointment 
to Eurojust, he worked in the Ministry of Justice as an assistant judge and for eight years as 

a lawyer in private practice mostly acting as defence counsel. For the last 11 years he has 

worked in a senior position at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Norway. 

He is still attached to the DPP’s Office as a senior public prosecutor. He is also the European 

Judicial Network contact point.

Administrative Director

Ernst  Merz  was  appointed  and  served  as  a  judge  in  Germany  until  1987.  He  was 
then  detached  to  the  Ministry  of  Justice  of  Rhineland-Palatinate  and  Thuringia.  Between 

1992  and  1999  he  was  the  Director  of  the  Academy  of  European  Law  (ERA)  in  Trier. 

In  2000  he  was  appointed  as  President  of  the  Social  Court  Koblenz  and  acted  as  first 

Secretary  General  of  the  European  Judicial  Training  Network.  In  May  2002  he  became 

provisional Administrative Director of Eurojust and in September 2002 he was appointed 

as Administrative Director.

108

ANNEX II

BARRIERS TO CASEWORK

Eurojust’s main task is working to resolve specific operational cases. So it is extremely important 

that we work constantly to identify and to solve problems and overcome barriers that arise in 

cases referred to Eurojust so that they can be handled efficiently and successfully. In 2005 the 

College  prepared  the  following  catalogue  of  problems  and  barriers  on  the  basis  of  interviews 

conducted  with  National  Members,  their  Deputies  and  Assistants.  The  list  is  given  in  no  order 

of priority.

Barriers to having cases referred to Eurojust

Problems relating to incentives for using Eurojust

•   Having a multilateral, cross-border approach to the investigation and prosecution of a 

crime costs money and human resources. It is easier and cheaper for police and 

prosecutors to address only the national crime and perpetrators within their territory. 

Often superiors do not appreciate or support a cross-border approach. Eurojust’s new 

policy of paying for travel expenses and accommodation for practitioners taking part 

in co-ordination meetings could help to alleviate this problem and will also enhance 

the profile of the National Member, but only to a very limited extent.

•   When goals and targets are set by national police and prosecutorial authorities, cross-

border  co-operation  and  the  provision  of  assistance  to  foreign  jurisdictions  are  not 

made a priority. When achievements are measured against targets, such assistance 

is not taken into account when calculating output and results. This again means that 

these  activities  will  be  downgraded  and  given  lower  priority  when  compared  to  the 

investigation and prosecution of national crimes and criminals.

•   The  investigative  and  prosecutorial  authorities  in  most  countries  lack  a  legal 

obligation to submit serious cross-border criminal cases to Eurojust or even to inform 

their National Members of such cases. Such an obligation is included in the legislation 

or administrative rules of only a few countries as part of the implementation of the 

Eurojust Decision.

Problems relating to national authorities’ willingness to use Eurojust

•   Many  prosecutors  have  not  yet  realised  that  almost  all  cases  of  organised 

crime  have  a  cross-border  aspect.  They  still  treat  organised  crime  purely  as  a 

national criminal phenomenon and so they do not feel the need to use the services of 

Eurojust. They do not see Eurojust as a proactive tool to be used to discover if there 

109

may be linked investigations or prosecutions in other countries, whose authorities may 

in turn be able to assist them with their own national cases.

•     Central  authorities  in  some  Member  States  are  not  interested  in  involving  Eurojust. 

They  prefer  using  the  old,  traditional  channels  for  communication  with  other 

central authorities in the Member States.

•   Some  local  police  and  prosecutors  prefer  using  bilateral  contacts  even  in 

multilateral  cases  rather  than  using  a  multilateral  institution  like  Eurojust  for  cross-

border co-operation in criminal cases.

•   The  narrow  specialisation  of  prosecutors  in  some  countries  means  they  deal 

only with national legal assistance or national investigation and/or prosecutions and 

sometimes results in a poor quality of requests, as well as delays, and also creates a 

barrier to early involvement of Eurojust in the investigative phase.

•   In  the  Member  States  that  opted  for  such  a  solution,  the  Eurojust  contact  point(s) 

("shadow National Member") in the home country is sometimes a barrier as 

he/she makes the first selection of suitable cases to send to the National Member of 

Eurojust.

Problems relating to knowledge of Eurojust

•   Some national authorities lack knowledge of Eurojust and the possibilities it offers 

for enhancing cross-border co-operation.

•   Some prosecutors have no or little experience of using Eurojust and are therefore 

reluctant to do so.

•   In some countries there is neither official recognition of Eurojust in the national 

legislation on criminal justice nor in administrative instructions or guidelines 

to prosecutors and police about the use of Eurojust. This makes it difficult to create 

awareness amongst prosecutors of the need to use Eurojust.

•    Some National Members have not yet established a sufficiently strong network 

with police and prosecutors in their home countries.

110

Problems relating to the role of the National Member

•   It has proved difficult for Eurojust to generate its "own" cases. National Members 

are reluctant to take action against the wishes of home authorities. It is felt as a loss 

of face to have to make a formal request according to Article 6 or 7 of the Eurojust 

Decision  to  national  authorities  unwilling  to  refer  a  case.  There  is  an  additional 

element:  to  some  extent  National  Members  feel  and  act  more  like  ambassadors  for 

their  home  authorities  than  exponents  of  the  idea  of  cross-border  co-operation  in 

criminal cases.

Barriers to handling casework

Legal problems

•   Late  or  wrong  implementation  of  legal  instruments  by  national  authorities 

makes    casework  more  difficult  and  creates  uncertainty  in  the  results  that  can  be 

obtained (e.g., 2000 Convention, EAW, JITs).

•   Differences in legal systems in the Member States create the need for additional 

MLA  requests  to  be  made  or  corrections  to  the  requests,  which  again  creates 

bureaucracy and delays.

Problems relating to national authorities

•   In  some  countries  the  co-operation  between  (some)  national  authorities  and 

the National Member is not always efficient. There are also problems in the internal 

interaction and relationship between national authorities.

•   In some countries requests for mutual legal assistance are lost quite regularly, 

e.g., in Spain.

•   The authorities in some countries are very slow in providing assistance, e.g., in the 

UK and Spain.

•   The quality of translation of MLA requests is often very poor.

111

Problems relating to National Members’ powers

•   National Members have no direct control over investigations and prosecutions. 

They often have no possibility to monitor the pre-investigation or prosecution phase 

of criminal cases and thus cannot attempt to provide input to promote a cross-border 

approach to decisions at that stage. Many cases come in so late that it is difficult to 

provide efficient casework support.

•  Many National Members can only communicate requests. They have no powers 

to decide on requests. As a consequence the possibilities for handling casework and 

providing results depend upon the willingness and goodwill of national authorities to 

co-operate.

•   National Members’ powers are inconsistent, which makes it difficult to be certain 

of the specific type of assistance that can be expected.

Problems regarding the functioning of the Eurojust National Member

•   National  authorities’  requests  for  assistance  are  often  too  limited,  e.g., 

requests  for  bilateral  facilitation  of  an  MLA  are  made  even  in  multilateral  cases. 

National  Members  should  take  the  initiative  in  such  cases  to  arrange  for  a  co-

ordination meeting involving all countries even if they are not requested to do so.

•   The Eurojust Decision requires communication to be made only through the National 

Members. In practice a number of communication channels are used: traditional, 

Europol,  Interpol,  Liaison  Magistrates  and  directly.  National  Members  waste  time 

tracking these communications and this loss of time also poses a barrier to feedback 

as other channels take over from the Eurojust channel.

•   The National Members need to be more willing to use the powers in Articles 6 and 

7 formally requesting authorities that are reluctant or slow in providing assistance. 

The National Member should not act as an ambassador for the national authorities but 

he or she should rather be able to act as an agent for Eurojust.

•    The National Members have too little assistance to handle their casework. They 

need  Assistants, legal advisors and translation services, both to perform the casework 

and to fulfil the requirements of the CMS.

112

•   For  National  Members  without  Deputies  or  Assistants,  time  spent  outside  The 

Hague for holidays, contacts with national authorities, seminars and meetings poses 

a problem in the handling of casework quickly and efficiently.

Problems receiving feedback

•   Lack  of  feedback  is  a  big  problem.  In  many  cases,  the  National  Member  must 

request, rather than receive voluntarily, feedback about cases from his or her national 

authority.

•   National  authorities  tend  to  forget  to  co-operate  with  Eurojust  once  the  request 

for assistance has been executed.

•   National authorities are pressed for time and resources and consequently feedback 

is not readily provided.

•   Feedback  is  limited  to  the  execution  of  the  request  but  is  not  given  about  the 

overall outcome of the case or other cross-border requests in the case.

•   Other National Members forget to give feedback, for example to the requesting 

National Member.

113

 
ANNEX III 

CONSUMER SATISFACTION EXERCISE

In  2005  the  College  made  an  unscientific  and  rudimentary  "consumer  satisfaction"  survey  by 

asking the authorities in the requesting Member States about our casework.

The aim was to evaluate the perception of the quality and speed of the handling of our casework 

and to identify where improvements might be made.

For  this  purpose  100  cases  were  randomly  selected  by  the  Secretary  to  the  College,  and 

National Members from the respective requesting Member States were asked to obtain answers 

from national authorities to some simple questions concerning their satisfaction with Eurojust’s 

assistance.

Though in most cases these questions could be answered, in some cases either: (a) no answer 

was  received,  (b)  the  answers  could  not  be  given  as  the  case  was  still  ongoing,  or  (c)  some 

replies did not directly respond to the questionnaire. In total more than 60 usable answers were 

received.

Due to the limited response, it is impossible to derive any valid statistical significance from the 

exercise and, of course, the methodology in itself contains an element of uncertainty.

However,  even  with  these  reservations  and  without  over-interpretation  of  the  answers,  some 

trends may be drawn from the results of the exercise:

As  to  the  quality  of  the  assistance  requested  and  executed:  50  respondents  (89%)  found  the 

quality very satisfactory and 6 respondents (11%) found the quality unsatisfactory.

With regard to the length of the period of time between the request to Eurojust and the execution 

of the action in the requested state, the picture is much the same, with 56 replies (88%) of very 

satisfactory and 8 replies (12%) of unsatisfactory.

As to the availability and service offered by Eurojust, satisfaction seems widespread, with 93% 

of respondents satisfied and only 7% unsatisfied.

114

As  to  whether  the  goals  were  achieved  in  the  individual  case,  the  picture  more  or  less 

corresponds. In 54 cases, the goals were achieved, while in 6 cases the goals were not achieved 

(90% and 10%, respectively).

It was encouraging to note that all respondents said that they would certainly (58) or probably 

(4) use Eurojust again.

Nearly half of the respondents (25 of 58) did not give feedback to Eurojust on the outcome of 

their cases. This figure corresponds to the experience of National Members who often encounter 

difficulty in obtaining specific feedback on the outcome of the assistance given by Eurojust.

It  is  meaningless  to  divide  these  results  into  the  various  types  of  assistance  which  Eurojust 

renders. The figures are so small that they are not significant. Some trends may, however, be 

identified.

Satisfaction  seems  widespread.  There  is  room  for  improvement  but  overall  satisfaction  levels 

stand at about 90%.

Satisfaction  does  not  vary  significantly  with  the  type  of  assistance  provided  by  Eurojust,  be  it 

co-ordination,  co-operation,  information  exchange  or  support  to  national  authorities.  Only  one 

type of assistance differs and that is assistance due to absence of response to an MLA request. 

The goals were only achieved in two out of five cases. A probable explanation is that Eurojust 

is  sometimes  asked  to  speed  up  the  execution  of  MLA  requests  when  all  other  channels  have 

failed  and  consequently  often  endeavouring  to  resolve  a  case  that  has  been  a  lost  cause  from 

the outset.

As we have mentioned, this survey was only a rough attempt to evaluate the output of Eurojust’s 

casework.  A  new  and  more  refined  exercise  should  be  made,  with  the  hope  of  gaining  a  more 

scientific  and  statistically  significant  response  that  can  be  used  to  improve  the  quality  of  the 

service we offer in specific circumstances as well as more generally.

115

Photos Joannes Thuy, Eurojust © 2006

116