Report from the Commission on the implementation of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking [SEC(2009)1661]
Date: 2009-12-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU law - national law, criminal procedure, drug traffic, national implementing measure, penal code, penalty

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.12.2009 
COM(2009)669 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the implementation of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum 
provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit 
drug trafficking 

[SEC(2009)1661] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
1. 

METHODOLOGY 

Framework  Decision  2004/757/JHA1  sets  out  to  establish  minimum  rules  relating  to  the 
constituent  elements  of  the  offences  of  illicit  trafficking  in  drugs  and  precursors,  so  as  to 
allow a common approach at European Union level to the fight against such trafficking 2. 

The effectiveness of the efforts made depends essentially on the harmonisation of the national 
measures implementing the Framework Decision3, and the Commission is required to assess 
this and to submit the present report4. To this end, the Commission has used the evaluation 
criteria  usually  employed  to  analyse  implementation  of  Framework  Decisions  (practical 
effectiveness,  clarity  and  legal  certainty,  full  application  and  compliance  with  the 
implementation  deadline)5,  as  well  as  specific  criteria  such  as  the  efficiency  (practical 
implementation)  and  effectiveness  (with  respect  to  international  judicial  cooperation)  of  the 
Framework Decision. 

By 1 June 2009, the Commission had received replies from 21 Member States6
. This means 
that six Member States did not comply with the obligation in Article 9(2) of the Framework 
Decision  to  transmit  information,  and  will  not  be  covered  in  the  report.  These  are  Cyprus, 
Spain7, Greece8, Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom.  

2. 

ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING MEASURES 

2.1. 

Definitions (Article 1) 

In its definition of drugs and precursors, Article 1 refers to the United Nations Conventions of 
1961, 1971 and 19889, ratified by all Member States, and to directly applicable Community 
legislation10 regarding precursors. 

In spite of the fact that certain Member States have not submitted their definitions (CZ, DE, 
HU,  SI,  BG),  the  Commission  is  able  to  conclude  on  the  basis  of  the  information  received 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

OJ L 335, 11.11.2004, p. 8. 
Third recital. 
Ninth recital. 
Article 9. 
See COM(2001) 771, 13.12.2001, section 1.2.2. 
Bulgaria sent only a few extracts from the legal texts to which it refers in its reply, so its account may 
be regarded only as an indication. 
Spain informed the Commission in 2006 and 2008 that the transposition measures were included in the 
ongoing reform of the country’s Penal Code. 
Greece informed the Commission in 2008 that a law implementing the Framework Decision would be 
debated in Parliament shortly. 
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol); the 1971 Vienna 
Convention  on  Psychotropic  Substances;  and  the  United  Nations  Convention  against  Illicit  Traffic  in 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 20 December 1988. 
Regulations (EC) No 111/2005 and No 273/2004, see p. 7 of the working paper.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
from other Member States that Article 1 does not raise any implementation problems, since 
appropriate national measures were already in force. 

In  Article  1(3),  the  term  “legal  person”  uses  the  standard  definition  employed  in  various 
Framework  Decisions.  Seven  Member  States  did  not  send  any  information  regarding  this 
point (CZ, DE, LU, PT, SE, SI, SK)11.  

2.2. 

Crimes linked to trafficking in drugs and precursors (Article 2) 

The activities described under Article 2 are the same as those listed in Article 3 of the 1988 
Convention. There is a difference in scope, however, in that the Framework Decision does not 
apply to activities relating to personal consumption (Article 2(2)). 

With respect to drug precursors, this report limits itself to trafficking-related crimes: it does 
not analyse penalties for violations of the provisions of Community Regulations in this area. 

2.2.1.  Crimes linked to trafficking in drugs (Article 2(1) (a), ( b) and c)) 

As  a  general  point,  the  wordings  of  Article  2  are  never  incorporated  into  the  national 
legislation  of  the  Member  States  in  their  entirety.  It  would  appear  that  these  formal 
shortcomings  are  overcome  by  using  generic  legal  wordings  or  broad  interpretations  where 
necessary.  For  example,  it  seems  that  the  terms  “production”  and  “manufacture”  are  in 
practice often interchangeable, and that acts not expressly referred to in the law are punished 
using  provisions  banning  possession,  which  is  obviously  a  prerequisite  to  all  types  of 
trafficking. 

Ten Member States (AT, BE, FI, HU, IE, LV, LU, NL, PT, RO) have listed all, or most, of 
the  activities  concerned  in  their  national  legislation.  Four  Member  States  (DE,  EE,  FR,  SE) 
have listed only parts, but comply with the Framework Decision through the use of generic 
terms.  Seven  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  DK,  LT,  PL,  SI,  SK)  have  more  ambiguous 
legislation12
  which  does  not  guarantee  full  application  of  the  Framework  Decision  in  a 
sufficiently clear and precise manner. 

2.2.2.  Crimes linked to trafficking in precursors (Article 2.1(d)) 

Pre-existing legislation in most Member States complies with Article 2(1)(d), either in that it 
treats  precursor  trafficking  and  drug  trafficking  in  the  same  way  by  penalising  the  same 
activities  (BE,  BG,  CZ,  DE,  SI,  SK),  or  in  that  it  recognises  certain  offences  specifically 
involving  trafficking  in  precursors,  which  is  broader  in  scope  without  being  directly 
comparable  to  drug  trafficking  (AT,  EE,  FI,  HU,  IE,  LT,  LU,  LV,  NL,  PL,  PT).  Import, 
export and possession are often included under this heading (HU, IE, LU, LV, PT).  

11 
12 

BG explained that its legislation did not include a definition of a legal person. 
See working paper, p. 9. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
Since  the  adoption  of  the  Framework  Decision,  only  two  Member  States  (RO,  SE)  have 
actually amended their legislation to comply with Article 2(1)(d).  

Two  Member  States  (DK,  FR)  stated  that  trafficking  in  precursors  is  not  covered  per  se  in 
their criminal law, but can fall within the offences of drug trafficking or aiding and abetting 
drug trafficking. The Commission has serious doubts about the compliance of these systems, 
particularly with respect to Article 313; the Commission’s fear is that the absence of a separate 
offence  of  precursor  trafficking  will  prevent  this  trafficking  from  being  properly  recorded, 
particularly with respect to attempt, incitement and aiding and abetting. 

While  the  precursor-related  activities  prohibited  by  the  Framework  Decision  are  also 
prohibited in national law, therefore, it has to be acknowledged that the Framework Decision 
has had only marginal impact. 

2.3. 

Incitement, aiding and abetting and attempt (Article 3) 

Article 3 has not caused any major implementation problems. The Commission estimates that 
of  the  21  Member  States  which  sent  the  requested  information,  18  have  legislation  that 
complies  with  the  Framework  Directive14.  Of  these  18  Member  States,  two  (FI,  SE)  have 
amended  their  legislation  to  ensure  compliance  and  two  (DE,  SE)  have  also  made  use  of 
Article 3(2). 

2.4. 

Penalties (Article 4) 

2.4.1. 

Standard offences (Article 4(1)) 

The  legislation  of  five  Member  States  (BG,  LT,  LV,  NL,  SE)  raises  problems  of 
interpretation, owing largely to a lack of information. While the one-year minimum is always 
respected,  maximum  penalties  are  actually  much  higher  in  most  Member  States.  In  twelve 
Member States (BG, FR, HU, IE, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK), penalties are more than 
twice  the  range  proposed  by  the  Framework  Decision,  meaning  that  there  are  maximum 
penalties  of  six  years  or  more  –  sometimes  as  much  as  twenty  years  –  or  even  life 
imprisonment.  On  the  whole,  legislative  disparities  between  the  Member  States  seem  to 
remain unchanged.  

At  the  same  time,  maximum  sentences  are  meaningful  only  in  the  context  of  proceedings 
actually  initiated  and  penalties  actually  imposed  by  the  courts.  A  comparison  of  judicial 
practice  in  each  Member  State  would  enable  an  assessment  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
objective of aligning national systems has been achieved in practice. 

In  this  context,  the  complexity  of  the  Dutch  system  and  the  controversies  relating  to  coffee 
shops merit particular attention. The sale of soft drugs in coffee shops is the result of a policy 

13 

14 

DK specified that attempted attempt (sic) or aiding and abetting was punishable. FR did not make any 
comment. 
Three Member States (BG, HU, RO) did not provide sufficient information. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
of highly regulated tolerance of a practice which remains a criminal offence. According to the 
public  prosecution  services’  guidelines,  coffee-shop  transactions  involving  5  grammes  of 
cannabis  per  person  will  not  be  prosecuted.  Dutch  legislation  is  in  compliance  with  Article 
4(1):  the  tolerance  policy  towards  coffee  shops  rests  primarily  on  the  principle  of 
discretionary prosecution, an area outside the Commission’s remit. However, the Framework 
Decision  is  concerned  with  the  most  serious  crimes,  and  the  Commission  has  particular 
concerns  regarding  the  wider  problem  of  the  supply  of  such  coffee  shops  by  criminal 
networks.  

The Commission thus concludes that all the national legislation of which it has been informed 
is  formally  compliant15,  but  expresses  regret  at  the  heterogeneous  nature  of  this  legislation 
and has concerns regarding its practical application.  

2.4.2.  Aggravated drug trafficking offences (Article 4(2)) 

Of  the  21  Member  States  which  replied,  20  comply  with  the  level  of  penalties  required  by 
Article 4(2)16 . However, the range of penalties runs from 10 to 15 years. Ten Member States 
have  established  maximum  sentences  of  ten  years  (AT,  BE,  CZ,  DK,  EE,  FI,  HU,  LT,  LU, 
SE),  while  eight  have  established  maximum  sentences  of  fifteen  years  (BE,  CZ,  DK17,  DE, 
HU, LT, LV, SK). Six Member States have even higher sentences (FR, HU, IE, LU, RO, SE), 
while four have maximum sentences ranging from five to eight years (AT, LT, NL, PL). 

Eight Member States take the aspects of quantity and harm to health into account (AT, CZ, 
DK, DE, FI, NL SK), while eight others take only one of these aspects into account (BE, EE, 
HU, LT, LU, LV, PL, RO). The legislation of five Member States makes no reference to this 
(BG, FR, IE, PT, SI), But since in these Member States the maximum penalty applying to the 
basic  offence  is  already  equivalent  to,  or  exceeds,  the  level  required  by  Article  4(2),  this 
failure to make a distinction is unimportant. 

The Commission considers that Article 4(2) has been satisfactorily implemented in terms of 
the scale of penalties. It should be noted that penalties are often higher than those set out in 
Article  4(2)  and  that  thirteen  Member  States  have  not  incorporated  the  aspects  of  quantity 
and/or harm to health into their legislation. 

2.4.3.  Aggravated  offences  committed  within  the  framework  of  a  criminal  organisation 

(Article 4(3) and 4(4)) 

(1) 

Aggravated offences involving drugs committed within the framework of a 
criminal organisation (Article 4(3)) 

Criminal law in the EU regarding drug trafficking generally takes the role of organised crime 
into account. Seventeen Member States (AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, FI, FR, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, 
PL, PT, RO, SI, SK) apply maximum sentences of at least 10 years for offences committed 
within the framework of a criminal organisation. The Netherlands has amended its narcotics 

15 
16 
17 

For marginal reservations with respect to BG, LT, LV and SE, please see the working paper. 
In the absence of specific information, the situation in BG is not included. 
16 years. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
legislation to expressly include offences relating to participation in a criminal organisation, in 
addition  to  the  general  provisions  in  the  penal  code.  DK,  IE  and  SE  do  not  have  specific 
provisions covering organised crime, but comply with the prescribed level of penalties. The 
Commission  did  not  have  enough  information  for  three  Member  States  (BE,  LU,  SI)  to  be 
able to analyse the issue of organised crime. 

Unlike  the  Framework  Decision,  the  Member  States  do  not  require  the  offence  to  involve 
large quantities of drugs, or drugs that cause the most harm to health18.  

In addition, a number of Member States have a range of different penalties that vary with the 
offender’s role in the criminal organisation (such as member, leader or provider of finance). 
For  the  standard  offence  of  membership,  maximum  sentences  are  generally  more  than 
10 years. In eight Member States (BE, CZ, DE, LT, LV, NL, PT, SI) the maximum sentence 
is  in  fact  15  years  or  more,  while  in  six  (EE,  FR,  LU,  PT,  RO,  SK)  it  is  20  years  or  more. 
Thus offences relating to drug trafficking within the framework of a criminal organisation are 
subject to much higher sentences than those established in the Framework Decision, and we 
can conclude that the penalty scales are respected. 

(2) 

Aggravated  offences  involving  precursors  committed  within  the  framework 
of a criminal organisation (Article 4(4)) 

The  role  of  organised  crime  is  also  generally  taken  into  account  in  criminal  law  covering 
precursor trafficking throughout the EU, but there are wider variations than in the case of drug 
trafficking. 

Thirteen  Member  States  (CZ,  DE,  FI,  HU,  LT,  LU,  LV,  NL,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK)  have 
legislation against precursor trafficking that takes organised crime into account. The penalties 
are also more severe. Five Member States (CZ, FI, HU, LV, PL) have maximum penalties of 
between six and ten years, while eight (DE, LT, LU, NL, PT19, RO, SI, SK) have maximum 
penalties of 15 years or more20. 

It  should  be  noted  that  seven  Member  States  (AT,  BE,  DK,  EE,  FR,  IE,  SE)  have  no 
legislation  regarding  criminal  organisations  and  precursors  (or  have  failed  to  inform  the 
Commission  of  such  legislation)21.  However,  the  maximum  sentences  applying  to  basic 
offences  involving  trafficking  in  precursors  in  the  above-mentioned  Member  States  are 
already at five years or more, so Article 4(4) has been satisfactorily implemented. 

2.5. 

Confiscation (Article 4(5)) 

Thirteen of the 21 Member States which replied (AT, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, LU, LV, PL, PT, 
RO,  SK)  informed  the  Commission  of  express  provisions  in  their  narcotics  law  regarding 
confiscation, while six (CZ, HU, IE, LT, NL, SI) informed the Commission of provisions in 
their  penal  codes.  BE  and  BG  have  not  furnished  any  information  on  such  provisions. 
Substances which are the objects of offences are generally confiscated. For the confiscation of 
instrumentalities, proceeds and property of corresponding value, the Commission refers to its 

18 
19 
20 
21 

Only Estonia mentions the trafficking of large quantities of drugs. 
Portugal increases the maximum 10-year sentence by a third, which makes it just under 15 years. 
LT, LU, NL, RO and SK provide for maximum 20-year prison sentences. 
For Denmark and France, see comments on Article 2(1)(d). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
report22 on the implementation of Framework Decision No 2005/212/JHA23 of the Council of 
24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property. 

2.6. 

Particular circumstances (Article 5) 

Under Article 5, Member States may have a system of reducing penalties in cases in which 
the offender assists the authorities. All Member States provided information on their national 
penalty reduction system, except BG, FI, NL and SI. In six Member States (AT, HU, LU, LV, 
PT, RO) a penalty reduction system for offenders cooperating with the authorities is expressly 
established  in  narcotics  legislation.  Several  Member  States  make  a  distinction  according  to 
whether  charges  have  already  been  brought,  and  some  also  provide  for  penalty  waivers  in 
addition  to  reductions.  None,  however,  have  amended  their  legislation  as  a  result  of  the 
Framework Decision. 

2.7. 

Liability of legal persons and sanctions for legal persons (Articles 6 and 7) 

With respect to Article 6, the principal stumbling block is the recognition of passive liability 
on  the  part  of  a  legal  person  (Article  6(2)).  The  legislation  of  ten  Member  States  (AT,  DE, 
DK, FI, HU, IE, LT, NL, PL, RO) complies with Article 6, but eight (BE, BG, EE, FR, LU, 
LV,  PT,  SI)  did  not  provide  enough  information,  particularly  concerning  Article  6(2). 
Additionally, two Member States have no legal framework establishing the liability of legal 
persons  (CZ,  SK),  while  Sweden’s  narrow  interpretation  of  the  concept  of  passive  liability 
means that it does not fully comply with Article 6(2). Article  6(3) does not pose any major 
problems for the Member States.  

As for Article 7, two Member States (CZ, SK) have stated that they do not yet have a relevant 
legal framework, while Luxembourg has a form of liability for legal persons which does not 
result in financial penalties, which is contrary to Article 7(1). Ten Member States (AT, BE, 
DE,  FI,  FR,  LT,  LV,  PL,  RO,  SE)  informed  the  Commission  of  legislation  that  formally 
complies with Article 7, unlike eight other Member States (BG, DK, EE, HU, IE, NL, PT, SI) 
which furnished no information, or insufficient information that mainly concerned the size of 
fines. 

Only  three  Member  States  (FI,  RO  and  SE)  have  amended  their  legislation  to  comply  with 
Articles  6  and  7.  The  Commission  draws  the  attention  of  the  Member  States  to  the  lack  of 
information received concerning implementation of the Framework Decision in respect of the 
liability of legal persons. 

2.8. 

Jurisdiction and prosecution (Article 8) 

All  Member  States  accept  the  principle  of  territorial  jurisdiction  (Article  8(1)(a)),  so  the 
analysis  will  concentrate  on  points  (b)  and  (c)  and  offences  committed  outside  national 

22 
23 

COM(2007) 805 final, adopted on 17 December 2007. 
OJ L, 15.3.2005. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
territory.  Article  8(3)  no  longer  serves  any  purpose  since  the  introduction  of  the  European 
arrest warrant.  

No  information  has  been  provided  concerning  offences  committed  in  part  on  national 
territory, but the Commission considers, despite this, that eleven Member States (AT, CZ, DE, 
DK, EE, FI, FR, LT, NL, PL, SE) have legislation that is in overall compliance with Article 8. 
Ten Member States (BE, BG, HU, IE, LU, LV, PT, RO, SI, SK), however, did not supply the 
necessary information. 

Six Member States (AT, DE, DK, EE, FR, SE) have informed the Commission, pursuant to 
Article  8(4),  of  their  decision  to  apply  paragraph  2,  in  particular  stating  their  intention  to 
waive or limit their jurisdiction in cases where the offence committed outside their territory 
was committed for the benefit of a legal person established in their territory (8(1)(c)). 

Despite  this,  the  degree  of  implementation  remains  unclear,  because  eight  Member  States 
(BE,  BG,  HU,  IE,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK)  have  not  provided  enough  information  concerning  the 
implementation of paragraph 1(c), and only five (CZ, FI, LT, NL, PL) are in conformity with 
this paragraph.  

3. 

OPERATION AND EFFECTS ON JUDICIAL COOPERATION 

The difficulty of studying the operation of the Framework Decision and its effects on judicial 
cooperation lies primarily in the collection of data on judicial practice in the Member States. 
The  Commission  has  relied  in  this  respect  on  information  from  Eurojust  and  the  European 
Judicial Network (EJN). On 14 November 2008, Eurojust supplied a summary of statistics on 
drug trafficking cases recorded by Eurojust between 1 January 2004 and 12 November 2008. 
The Commission also requested information from the EJN by means of a questionnaire which 
was sent to all its contact points24.  

3.1. 

Eurojust’s input 

During  the  above-mentioned  period,  the  College  of  Eurojust  recorded  771  drug  trafficking 
cases, which showed a significant increase from 77 cases in 2004 to 207 in 2007. Drug cases 
account for 20% of the cases handled by Eurojust between 2004 and 2008.  

The Member States that have reported the largest number of drug trafficking cases to Eurojust 
are Italy (81 cases), France (72) and the Netherlands (71), while the Member States with the 
smallest numbers are Malta (1 case), Cyprus (1), Ireland (2) and Slovakia (2). 

The  Member  States  in  receipt  of  most  applications  to  take  action  are  the  Netherlands 
(264 applications),  Spain  (243)  and  Italy  (171),  while  the  Member  States  in  receipt  of  the 
fewest applications are Malta (3 applications), Cyprus (8), Slovakia (9), and Latvia (9). 

Overall,  the  statistics  point  to  the  prominent  role  of  the  Netherlands,  Italy,  France  and 
Germany,  either  as  applicant  countries  or  countries  of  enforcement.  Sweden  and  Portugal 
notified  a  relatively  large  number  of  drug  trafficking  cases  (64  and  57,  respectively),  while 

24 

These documents are included in the working paper. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom  received  many  applications  from  other  countries  (243  and 
102 times, respectively). The Member States least involved, whether as applicant countries or 
countries of enforcement, are Malta, Cyprus, Latvia and Slovakia. 

Finally, it is interesting to note that of 151 drug trafficking cases associated with one or more 
other crimes, 65 involved participation in a criminal organisation. 

This  information  shows  that  there  has  been  a  clear  increase  in  judicial  cooperation  on  drug 
trafficking between Member States through Eurojust since 2004. However, it is at this stage 
impossible  to  distinguish  how  the  Framework  Decision has affected  such cooperation,  or to 
measure its impact. This question was the focus of the questionnaire to the EJN. 

3.2. 

Input of the European Judicial Network 

The contact points of the EJN in ten Member States (CZ, DE, FI, FR, HU, IE, LV, LU, PL, 
PT) replied to the Commission’s questionnaire.  

The  general  impression  given  by  their  data  is  that  although  specialists  are  familiar  with  the 
Framework Decision, they regard its importance as minor, because it has not resulted in many 
changes  to  national  legislation.  The  question  of  the  Framework  Decision’s  effect 
on cooperation  remains  open,  because  the  Framework  Decision  does  not  concern  judicial 
cooperation  directly,  and  because  no  Member  State  seems  to  have  a  centralised  system 
enabling  it  to  measure  trends  in  judicial  cooperation  in  drug  trafficking  cases.  The  replies 
often point to a degree of uncertainty amongst specialists, for example in Finland, France and 
Portugal. 

In  Finland,  for  example,  the  contact  point  considers  that  the  changes  that  have  taken  place 
since  the  adoption  of  the  Framework  Decision  are  only  minor  and  that  they  have  had  no 
impact  on  judicial  cooperation,  but  also  says  that  it  is  impossible  to  draw  any  objective 
conclusions, given the short perspective and the lack of a monitoring system that would allow 
any such impact to be measured.  

In  France,  the  contact  point  also  mentions  the  absence  of  a  system  providing  the  central 
administration with an accurate overview of all requests for assistance concerning narcotics. 
The  French  courts  are  finding  an  overall  improvement  in  the  quality  of  implementation  of 
their  requests  for  assistance  in  narcotics  trafficking  cases,  but  the  quality  remains  very 
variable  depending  on  the  country  involved.  The  intervention  of  liaison  magistrates  or 
Eurojust  representatives  often  permits  complex  coordinated  action  to  be  taken.  The  contact 
point concludes, however, that it is difficult to determine whether these improvements are the 
result  of  Member  States’  transposition  of  the  Framework  Decision,  and  that  general 
improvements in cooperation over the past five years seem to be a result of the emergence of 
a  “European  judicial  culture”  amongst  magistrates  rather  than  of  the  transposition  of  the 
Decision.  

In Portugal, according to the contact point, the Framework Decision is known but little used, 
since national legislation was already along the same lines. No particular changes have been 
noted with respect to judicial cooperation, and greater use of already existing rules in the new 
cooperation instruments is recommended. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

Implementation of the Framework Decision has not been completely satisfactory. While the 
majority of Member States already had a number of the provisions in place, a number have 
also  demonstrated  –  often  in  sketchy  answers  –  that  they  have  not  always  amended  their 
existing legislation where the Framework Decision required it. Six Member States provided 
no  information  whatsoever.  There  has  thus  been  little  progress  in  the  alignment  of  national 
measures in the fight against drug trafficking. The weak impact of the Framework Decision is 
confirmed  by  the  EJN’s  input.  It  is  difficult  to  establish  a  link  between  the  Framework 
Decision  and  the  progress  in  judicial  cooperation  described  by  Eurojust.  The  Commission 
consequently  invites  those  Member  States  which  have  submitted  no  information,  or 
incomplete  information,  to  comply  with  their  obligations  under  Article  9  of  the  Framework 
Decision and furnish the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council with all their 
implementing provisions very rapidly. 

EN 

10 

   EN