Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the European Union
Date: 2007-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Eurojust, European judicial area, criminal law, fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial power, organised crime, terrorism

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.10.2007 
COM(2007) 644 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against 
organised crime and terrorism in the European Union 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against 
organised crime and terrorism in the European Union 

Eurojust  was  set  up,  following  the  positive  experience  of  Pro-Eurojust,  by  a  Decision  of 
28 February 2002 (“the Decision”)1; since then it has proved effective in bringing about a real 
improvement in the operation of law enforcement cooperation between the 27 Member States 
and has recorded significant operational successes. 

In the Hague Programme2 the European Council asked the Commission to consider Eurojust’s 
further development. Specialists in judicial cooperation met to discuss the issue in Vienna in 
September 20063.  The  European Judicial Network4 has contributed to  the process5. Eurojust 
itself has also made a contribution. In conclusions adopted on 13 June last, the Council once 
again  asked  the  Commission  to  present  a  communication  on  the  role  of  Eurojust  and  the 
European Judicial Network6. 

1. 

Transposal of the Decision: a qualified success  

Leaving  aside  for  a  moment  the  question  of  progress  with  the  legal  transposal  of  the 
Decision7, the Commission would like to stress that Eurojust’s operational record is a positive 
one. In 2006, 771 operational cases were registered. This represents an increase of 31% over 
the year 20058. The quality and speed of the handling of cases are generally recognised. But 
the development of Eurojust needs to be accompanied by a clarification and reinforcement of 
the  powers  of  the  national  members  and  by  greater  authority  for  the  College.  In  order  to 
achieve this objective, the Decision ought to be amended.  

Possible improvements  

1.1. 

Giving wider powers to the national members  

A reinforcement of cooperation is made more difficult by the fact that there is no consistency 
in  the  powers  of  the  national members.  In  view  of  the  importance  of  Eurojust,  the 
Member States should take measures to spell out the powers of the national members and of 
the  College.  If  the  national member  is  to  have  the  proper  degree  of  authority  within  the 
national  law  enforcement  framework  and  at  European  level,  an  administrative  decision 
designating the national member, describing his or her status and briefly setting out his or her 
responsibilities is not enough.  

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1. 
OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1. 
Document 14123/06, 19 October 2006, Eurojust 48, limité. 
Joint Action of 29 June 1998 (OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 4).  
Vision Paper, 19 September 2006, document 6053/07 EJN 6. 
Council conclusions, document 9920/07 COPEN 73. 
See annexed tables. 
Eurojust annual reports for 2004, 2005 and 2006. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  their  dealings  with  the  authorities  in  their  home  countries,  national members  rarely  have 
power to act with authority themselves. A few Member States do allow their national member 
to order an investigation9. Most national members are entitled to suggest the setting up of a 
joint  investigation  team,  but  very  few  can  negotiate  it,  and  even  fewer  can  order  it10.  More 
than  half  of  the  national members  continue  to  hold  law  enforcement  powers  in  their  home 
country11.  But  these  powers  are  rarely  exercised12  because  of  the  specific  character  of 
international criminal cooperation and an insufficient presence in the home country. 

The information sought in requests for judicial cooperation submitted by the law enforcement 
authorities  of  the  Member States  is  invariably  wanted  for  the  purpose  of  inquiries  or  legal 
proceedings  that  are  under  way  in  the  particular  Member State.  Eurojust's  work  is  not 
sufficiently  proactive.  Access  to  information  is  fundamental.  The  E-POC I  and  II  projects, 
financed  under  the  AGIS  programme,  have  seen  the  installation  of  a  secure  internal 
communication  network.  The  E-POC III  project,  currently  being  tested13,  will  allow 
information to be exchanged on a secure basis. Access to the information in SIS II will make 
it  easier  for  national members  to  perform  their  function.  Every  Member State  ought  to 
develop  the  legal  machinery  to  allow  the  national members  access  to  the  national  files  on 
persons in custody, criminal records, and DNA records14. 

Articles 9(4)  and  13  of  the  Eurojust  Decision,  and  Article 2  of  the  Terrorism  Decision15, 
require  Member States  to  pass  information  to  the  national members  as  soon  as  it  is  known. 
Not all Member States comply with this obligation. The Council recently called on national 
law enforcement authorities16 to supply information on complex and serious cases to Eurojust 
more  rapidly17.  Some  Member States  have  imposed  a  requirement  that  their  national 
representative be informed of all transnational cases; this enables the representative to take the 
initiative  and  to  correlate  cases  using  the  Eurojust  databank.  This  practice  should  be 
encouraged by amending the Decision. 

Proposals 

National members  are  currently  appointed  for  anything  from  a  year  to  an  unlimited  period. 
Most  are  appointed  for  a  term  of  three  years,  renewable  once18.  In  order  to  give  the 
organisation  a  measure  of  stability,  national members  should  be  appointed  to  Eurojust  for  a 
harmonised term of at least three years. They should not be removable. Article 9(1) should be 
amended accordingly.  

9 
10 
11 

12 
13 
14 

15 

16 
17 
18 

Bulgaria, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden. 
The Czech Republic, Germany, Malta and Sweden. 
Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom (in the UK, only in urgent cases where 
the proper authority is unable to act). 
Information supplied by Eurojust, 1 June 2007. 
Between Italy, France, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. 
Council  Resolution  of  9 June 1997  on  the  exchange  of  DNA  analysis  results  (OJ  C  193,  24.6.1997, 
p. 2). 
Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation 
concerning terrorist offences (OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, p. 22). 
Council conclusions on the fifth Eurojust annual report. 
Conclusions, point 4. 
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal 
and Romania. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It  is  also  important  that  the  national member  should  be  assigned  to  Eurojust  on  a  full-time 
basis,  and  should  have  one  or  more  deputies  who  can  take  his  or  her  place,  so  as  to  ensure 
regular representation and full participation in the work of the College. The reinforcement of 
the  national  offices  will  be  crucial,  because  Eurojust’s  operational  capacity  depends  on  it. 
Article 2(2) should be amended accordingly. The Commission also encourages Eurojust and 
the  Member States  to  make  use  of  the  services  of  national  experts.  Article  30(2)  already 
makes provision for this. 

There ought to be a shared base of minimum powers. It is not the role of the national members 
to  take  the  place  of  the  administrative  or  court  staff  who  handle  requests  for  international 
mutual  assistance  on  a  day-to-day  basis.  The  function  of  the  national members  is  rather  to 
take action at operational, legal or technical level, making use of their practical experience to 
improve  the  effectiveness  of  mutual  assistance  and  other  forms  of  cooperation.  The 
Commission  would  therefore  encourage  Member States  to  develop  their  practice  in  this 
direction. 

They might consider the following: 

Together with the domestic law enforcement authorities, the national member should be 
able:  

•  where  necessary  or  urgent,  to  accept  and  forward  requests  from  national 

authorities and to ensure that they are properly followed up 

These  tasks  are  provided  for  in  Articles 6(a)(v)  and  6(g).  The  only  thing  that  needs  to  be 
added is “monitoring the follow-up to requests”. 

•  where  there  are  difficulties  with  follow-up,  to  ask  the  law  enforcement 
authority  concerned,  via  the  appropriate  national member,  to  take  further 
follow-up measures and to suggest additional investigations or inquiries  

Article 6(a)(i)  already  allows  the  national member  to  ask  his  or  her  own  authorities  to 
undertake an investigation; the scope of this provision should be extended. 

•  to suggest that the prosecutor, judge or court dealing with a case take special 

investigation measures relating to specific facts  

This possibility ought to be provided for in Article 6. 

•  to be informed before a decision is taken to set up a joint investigation team 

The  possibility  of  setting  up  a  joint  investigation  team  is  provided  for  in  Article 6(a)(iv). 
Informing Eurojust in advance whenever a joint investigation team is to be set up would allow 
Eurojust to ask the national authorities to be allowed to play a role in joint investigation teams 
that might be of interest, thus avoiding the problems that can arise later. 

•  to be informed to the extent necessary, where two other Member States  are 
involved,  of  the  organisation  of  a  controlled  delivery,  an  infiltration  or  an 
undercover investigation and to have responsibility for monitoring it 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
•  to  receive  automatic,  early,  complete  and  continuous  information  on  all 
criminal cases involving three Member States or more, or two Member States 
or  more  where  the  offence  is  particularly  serious  (terrorism  or  human 
trafficking) in so far as necessary for the performance of Eurojust’s functions 

This is a request that the Commission put forward in its 2000 communication. 

•  to forward this information to the national member of a Member State which 

has not been informed but which is involved de facto  

This task is referred to in Article 13(2), which should be amended to include a Member State 
which has not been informed but which is involved de facto. 

•  to  receive  from  national  law  enforcement  authorities  all  judgments  in 
transnational cases of money laundering, organised crime, human trafficking 
and terrorism in so far as necessary for the performance of Eurojust’s tasks 

The provision of information of this kind is already within the scope of Article 6(a)(v), which 
needs to be clarified. 

For  all  of  these  tasks  it  is  important  that  requests  for  information  submitted  by  a 
national member should not go unanswered. The fact that an inquiry may be confidential does 
not  justify  a  refusal  to  send  information  to  the  national member  of  the  Member State 
concerned.  The  level  of  protection  of  personal  data  provided  for  in  Articles 14  to  25  of  the 
Decision is sufficient.  

In  the  longer  term  the  Commission  will  examine  the  possibility  of  a  new  legal  basis 
which  would  substantially  reinforce  the  powers  of  the  national members  and  which 
might in particular give them a greater role in the following:  

•  the initiation of criminal cases, especially those involving offences prejudicial to 

the financial interests of the Union; 

•  the setting up of a joint investigation team, and participation in it; 

•  the taking of specific investigative measures. 

1.2. 

The powers of the College 

The College has the same powers as the national members and has some additional tasks of its 
own. 

Registration of new cases in the case management system19, at the request of Member States, 
is an important step in the gathering and transmission of information. In deciding to accept a 
case, the College states its criminal policy and the direction it would like the case to take.  

19 

In 2004, as part of an AGIS programme (EPOC), Eurojust set up an automated data processing system 
known as the case management system (CMS), whose development is continuing with the aid of that 
programme.  Technical  solutions  are  currently  being  explored  with  a  view  to  establishing  secure 
connections with the Member States.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Like  the  national member,  the  College  can  rule  on  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  (Article 7(a)(ii)) 
and on competing arrest warrants20. The few rulings made so far have all been accepted, but 
the College’s decisions are not legally binding on the Member States.  

The reason why Article 7 has been used so little may be that Member States felt that there was 
no  need  to  refer  a  matter  to  the  College  or  that  the  Member States  managed  to  resolve  any 
differences without needing to seek the College’s opinion. But Member States are frequently 
unaware of the real scale of the case because information has not been assembled at European 
level,  even  though  registration  of  information  in  the  Eurojust  database  is  now  possible  and 
encouraged. 

The  role  of  the  College  in  the  setting  up  of  joint  investigation  teams  is  limited,  because 
Member States still involve Eurojust in the establishment and supervision of such teams only 
rarely. So far, of 18 joint investigation teams set up21, Eurojust has played a role in only three. 

The  low  level  of  involvement  of  the  College  in  operational  cases  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
College  does  not  initiate  such  cases  itself:  cases  are  referred  to  the  College  only  where 
Member States disagree on the course to be taken. But if Eurojust had fuller information, the 
College  could  take  on  these  tasks,  as  provided  in  the  Decision,  not  only  in  response  to 
requests under Article 7 but also in any other cases brought before it.  

Proposals 

The  College  should  also  have  wider  powers.  The  coordination  and  management  of  mutual 
assistance in criminal matters is primarily a matter for the national member, but the College 
could  become  a  channel  for  the  settlement  of  disagreements  between  Member States.  The 
College  should  be  able  to  strengthen  its  role  as  a  mediator  in  order  to  prevent  and  help  to 
resolve conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States.  

In  the  longer  term,  in  the  context  of  a  possible  new  legal  basis,  the  Commission  will 
consider conditions and machinery by which the College could:  

•  settle conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States and conflicts regarding the 

working of the mutual recognition instruments; 

•  initiate inquiries in a Member State and propose prosecution there, and play a role 

in specific investigation measures; 

•  initiate  criminal  inquiries  at  European  level,  especially  regarding  offences 

prejudicial to the financial interests of the Union.  

1.3. 

Changes to the structure of Eurojust 

Article 29(1)  should  be  amended  to  allow  the  Administrative  Director  of  Eurojust  to  be 
appointed not by all of the members of the College unanimously but by a two-thirds majority. 
It should also provide that the selection board should include a member of the Commission. . 

20 
21 

Article 16(2) of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002). 
Figures  at  15 May 2007.  Teams  set  up  by  Spain,  France,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  the  United 
Kingdom, Germany and Sweden. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

Eurojust  and  the  other  players  in  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal 
matters 

Eurojust’s relations with its partners should be clarified and simplified. 

2.1. 

Relations with the European Judicial Network and the liaison magistrates 

2.1.1.  The European Judicial Network 

As a result of its cross-cutting flexible structure, the European Judicial Network has facilitated 
judicial cooperation between the Member States. It has proved a useful tool: its Internet site 
on the systems of justice in Europe deserves special mention.  

The  differences  in  the  organisation  of  the  network  in  different  Member States,  linguistic 
difficulties, legal difficulties in international cooperation and frequent overlaps with the field 
of responsibility of Eurojust all justify a reorganisation of the network. 

In order to strengthen and improve cooperation between Eurojust and the European Judicial 
Network, the Commission envisages the following structure.  

The  national  contact  point  referred  to  in  the  Joint  Action  would  also  be  the  national 
correspondent  of  the  Eurojust  national member,  who  is  referred  to  in  Article 12  of  the 
Decision. This national correspondent, working in the Member State, would be a member of 
the  Eurojust  national member’s  team.  In  collaboration  with  the  national  law  enforcement 
authorities, he or she would manage the different points of contact in the country and would 
act  as  a  link  for  Eurojust’s  policy  of  communication  there.  He  or  she  would  be  the  contact 
points’  national  representative  for  all  dealings  with  the  Eurojust  secretariat.  These  national 
contact points would assist the other contact points in their Member State in case of difficulty. 
The  national  contact  point  would  be  the  Eurojust  national member’s  primary  contact  in  the 
home  country,  but,  of  course,  the  national member  would  continue  to  be  in  direct 
communication  with  the  law  enforcement  authorities  of  the  country,  a  feature  that  is 
fundamental to the effectiveness of the system. The structure described already exists in some 
countries  and  has  demonstrated  its  effectiveness;  the  Commission  is  accordingly  proposing 
that it be generalised. 

The proposal would require the amendment of Articles 26(2) and 12. The role of a national 
coordinator of this kind would be systematically to forward to the Eurojust national member 
any multilateral cases of which he or she might be aware and any complex bilateral cases that 
had  not  been  resolved  properly  or  promptly  by  the  contact  points.  As  a  member  of  the 
national member’s  team,  he  or  she  would  immediately  forward  all  cases  falling  with  the 
competence of Eurojust to the national member.  

The Commission feels that the Eurojust secretariat ought to host not just the secretariat of the 
European  Judicial  Network  but  also  the  secretariats  of  operational  networks  in  the  law 
enforcement sphere such as the network of terrorism contact points, the CARIN network and 
the genocide network22.  

22 

Council Decision of 13 June 2002 (OJ L 167, 26.6.2002). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.2.  The liaison magistrates 

The  appointment  of  liaison  magistrates  to  improve  bilateral  cooperation  has  been  handled 
differently  in  different  Member States.  This  channel  of  communication  is  provided  for  in  a 
joint  action  of  199623,  but  it  is  used  in  different  ways24.  In  fact,  only  a  minority  of 
Member States have liaison magistrates at all25, and yet liaison magistrates have a useful role 
to  play  in  international  law  enforcement  cooperation.  In  the  future,  Eurojust  might  itself 
designate  liaison  magistrates  in  countries  outside  the  EU  so  as  to  facilitate  cooperation 
between  the  Member States  and  the  country  in  which  they  were  to  be  appointed.  Their 
functions  would  be  similar  to  those  of  the  Norwegian  and  United  States  liaison  magistrates 
currently at Eurojust.  

2.2. 

Stepping up cooperation with Europol 

Since it signed a cooperation agreement with Europol26, Eurojust has constantly improved its 
links with that organisation. It is worth drawing attention to the quality of the work done by 
these partners in organising expert meetings on joint investigation teams27. On 7 June 2007 a 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  was  signed  on  the  setting  up  of  a  secure  communications 
network. This will increase the exchange of information between Eurojust and Europol.  

The  entry  into  force  on  18 April 2007  of  the  Protocol  of  27 November 2003  amending  the 
Europol  Convention28  will  facilitate  access  to  Europol’s  analytical  work  files  (AWFs)  and 
wider participation in those analyses.  

Cooperation between Eurojust and the various Europol national liaison offices is still uneven. 
The  links  should  be  strengthened  systematically,  and  exchanges  of  information  with  these 
offices should be improved.  

Development  of  cooperation  between  Eurojust  and  Europol  in  this  fashion  does  not  require 
amendment  of  Article 26,  in  so  far  as  the  rules  on  the  protection  of  data  permit  Eurojust  to 
exchange information in a satisfactory manner.  

2.3. 

Stepping up cooperation with the Commission (OLAF) 

Cooperation  between  Eurojust  and  OLAF29 
is  governed  by  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding30,  which  should  be  modified  by  a  cooperation  agreement.  The  fields  of 
responsibility  of  OLAF  and  Eurojust  are  separate31.  In  order  to  secure  all  of  the  potential 
benefit  of  cooperation  between  OLAF,  as  a  specialised  agency  investigating  Community 
fraud, and Eurojust, as a law enforcement cooperation agency, there is a need for exchange of 
information,  both  operational  and  strategic.  The  Commission  takes  the  view,  therefore,  that 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

30 
31 

Joint Action 96/277/EC of 22 April 1996 (OJ L 105, 27.4.1996). 
For example, France has 11 liaison magistrates, while some Member States have none.  
Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom. 
9 June 2004. 
Eurojust Annual Report 2006, p. 17. 
Council Act of 27 November 2003 (OJ C 2, 6.1.2004, p. 1). 
Set up by Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, 
p. 20). 
Signed on 14 April 2003, not published. 
The  objectives  and  tasks  of  OLAF  are  set  out  in  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1073/1999  (OJ  L  136, 
31.5.1999, p. 1), and in Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 8). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the Decision should make provision for the regular exchange of information at a sufficiently 
early stage. Compatible rules on the protection of data should play a part in the development 
of closer cooperation.  

The designation of contact points and the establishment of regular meetings for the exchange 
of information and training should continue. 

2.4. 

Stepping up cooperation with Frontex 

The  protection  of  the  EU’s  external  borders  on  land  or  sea  is  a  question  that  arises  in 
connection not just with clandestine immigration but also with organised crime such as drug 
trafficking and human trafficking. 

In  the  absence  of  legal  obstacles,  the  signing  of  a  cooperation  agreement  between  Eurojust 
and Frontex is to be encouraged. 

2.5. 

Cooperation with non-EU countries 

Eurojust  has  developed  contacts  with  non-EU  countries  with  a  view  to  facilitating  and 
intensifying cooperation between law enforcement authorities. 

On  the  basis  of  Article 27,  Eurojust  has  concluded  cooperation  agreements  permitting  the 
exchange  of  information  and  personal  data  in  operational  cases  and  participation  in 
coordination meetings32. These agreements are reflected in the sending of liaison officers to 
Eurojust by Norway and the United Stats. Negotiations are in progress on similar agreements 
with other countries33. When a cooperation agreement cannot be negotiated, Eurojust seeks to 
develop a network of contact points; this has happened most notably in the Mediterranean34 
and with the IBER-RED network.  

Conclusion 

Amending  the  Decision  so  that  the  steps  described  can  be  taken  would  enable  Eurojust  to 
develop its potential for cooperation and to establish itself further as a vital player in the fight 
against organised crime and terrorism in Europe. 

Eurojust needs to become a stronger structure acknowledged by all the Member States, who 
should  consolidate  the  powers  of  their  national members  and  of  the  College  by  transposing 
the Decision fully into their own law and expanding the powers conferred on them. This will 
permit  progress  in  the  fight  against  cross-border  crime  and  the  establishment  of  an  area  of 
justice, freedom and security in Europe. 

32 
33 
34 

On 15 June 2007 the countries concerned were Iceland, Norway and the United States. 
On 15 June 2007 these were Croatia, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine. 
Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia . 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Transposal of the Eurojust Decision and status of the national member  

BE  BG  CZ  DK  DE  EE 

IE  EL  ES  EN 

IT  CY  LV  LT  LU  HU MT NL  AT PL PT RO SI  SK  FI 

SE  UK 

Eurojust  Decision 
transposed 

yes 

Transposal 
progress 

in 

Administrative 
decision 

No decision 

National member’s 
status 

P 

yes 

yes  yes  yes 

yes 

yes 

yes

yes

yes 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

P 

X 

P 

X 

P 

X 

X  X 

P/J  P 

P 

P/J  P/J  P 

P/J  P 

P 

X 

P 

P/J  P 

X 

P 

X 

P 

X 

P/J  P 

P 

P 

X 

P 

X 

X  X 

P/J  P/O  P 

P 

Term of office  

5R 

3 

3R  U 

3R 

4R 

3R 

3R 

3R 

3R 

4R 

2R 

5R 

3 

4R 

3R  U 

U 

1R  U 

3R  3R 

4R  4R  2R  U  U 

P: prosecutor 

J: judge  O: police officer 

Figure +R: term of office, renewable 

U: open-ended 

EN 

10 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Powers of the Eurojust national members (Article 6) 

BE  BG  CZ  DK  DE  EE 

IE 

EL  ES 

EN 

IT 

CY  LV  LT  LU  HU  MT  NL  AT 

PL 

PT  RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE  UK 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

yes  no 

no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  no 

no 

no 

yes  yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes 

To ask his or 
her 
Member State 
to undertake 
an 
investigation 
or a 
prosecution in 
a specific 
case 

To accept a 
Eurojust 
decision on a 
conflict of 
jurisdiction or 
prosecution 

To manage 
coordination  

To request 
and intervene 
in the setting 
up of a joint 
investigation 
team 

To provide all 
useful 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
  
 
 
information 
for the 
performance 
of its tasks 

consult 

To 
criminal 
records direct 

make 
To 
direct  contact 
with 
the 
competent 
authorities 

yes  yes  yes  no 

yes  yes  no 

no 

yes  yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  no 

no 

no 

yes  yes  no 

yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  no 

yes  yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes 

II. Further related powers not formally provided for in the Eurojust Decision 

BE  BG  CZ  DK  DE  EE 

IE 

EL  ES 

EN 

IT 

CY  LV  LT  LU  HU  MT  NL  AT  PL 

PT  RO  SI 

SK 

FI 

SE  UK 

no 

yes   yes  no 

no 

yes  yes  no 

no 

no 

no 

yes  yes  yes  no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes 

no 

yes  no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

yes  yes  yes  yes 

no 

yes  no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

yes  yes  yes  yes  no 

Law 
enforcement  or 
operational 
powers  retained 
in home country 

a 
for 

To  make 
request 
mutual 
assistance  

an 
order 
To 
investigation and 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
prosecution 

To  authorise  the 
setting  up  of  a 
joint 
investigation 
team 

no 

no 

yes  no 

yes  no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

yes  no 

EN 

13 

EN