Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and the Council and Council Decision 2005/671/JHA, as regards the digital information exchange in terrorism cases
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: Eurojust, cross-border cooperation, data protection, exchange of information, fight against crime, information system, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings, personal data, terrorism

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.12.2021  COM(2021) 757 final 2021/0393 (COD)  Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and the Council and Council Decision 2005/671/JHA, as regards the digital information exchange in terrorism cases {SWD(2021) 391 final}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

The  European  Union  Agency  for  Criminal  Justice  Cooperation  (Eurojust)  coordinates 
investigations  and prosecutions of serious cross-border crime in  Europe and beyond. As the 
European  Union’s  (EU)  hub  for  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters,  Eurojust  supports 
national investigating and prosecuting authorities. 

Combating  terrorism  has  been  part  of  Eurojust’s  mandate  since  its  creation  in  2002  and 
remains one of its core priorities. To combat terrorism effectively, it is crucial that competent 
authorities efficiently share relevant information among themselves and with EU agencies and 
bodies to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute terrorist offences. 

Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA  of  20 September 2005  on  the  exchange  of  information  and 
cooperation  concerning  terrorist  offences1  states  that  to  combat  terrorism,  it  is  essential  to 
have the most complete and up to date information possible. The persistence and complexity 
of the terrorist threat gives rise to the need for more information sharing. 

Against this background, Council Decision 2005/671/JHA provides that Member States must 
collect  all relevant  information  concerning and resulting from  criminal  investigations  linked 
to  terrorist  offences,  which  affect  or  may  affect  two  or  more  Member  States  and  send  it  to 
Europol2.  In  addition,  Member  States  must  collect  all  relevant  information  concerning 
prosecutions  and  convictions  for  terrorist  offences,  which  affect  or  may  affect  two  or  more 
Member  States  and  send  it  to  Eurojust.  Each  Member  State  must  also  make  available  all 
relevant  information  gathered  by  its  competent  authorities  about  criminal  proceedings 
connected  with  terrorist  offences.  This  information  must  be  swiftly  made  available  to  the 
competent  authorities  of  another  Member  State  where  the  information  could  be  used  to 
prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute terrorist offences.  

Since 2005, the importance of sharing information between Member States and with Europol 
and  Eurojust  has  only  become  more  evident.  Directive  (EU)  2017/541  on  combating 
terrorism3  amended  Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA,  to  ensure  that  information  is  shared 
between  Member  States  in  an  effective  and  timely  manner,  taking  into  account  the  serious 
threat posed by terrorist offences. 

One  of  the  key  aspects  of  Eurojust’s  work  in  this  field  is  the  European  Judicial  Counter-
Terrorism  Register  (CTR).  The  CTR  was  launched  in  September  2019,  based  on  Council 
Decision  2005/671/JHA.  For  the  CTR,  Member  States  provide  information  on  judicial 
proceedings concerning terrorist offences in their jurisdiction. These data are stored and cross-
checked in Eurojust’s information processing system - the Eurojust case management system 
(CMS) - in the same way as operational data related to ongoing cases of judicial cooperation 

1 

2 

3 

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). 
Europol is the EU’s law enforcement agency. Europol supports law enforcement authorities throughout 
the EU on crime fighting activities in all its mandated areas. 
Directive  (EU)  2017/541  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  March  2017  on 
combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council 
Decision 2005/671/JHA  (OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6). 

EN 

1 

  EN 

                                                 
supported  by  Eurojust.  The  objective  is  to  identify  potential  links  between  judicial  counter-
terrorism  proceedings  and  possible  coordination  needs  stemming  from  these.  Based  on  the 
findings  of  the  Digital  Criminal  Justice  study4,  improving  the  functioning  of  the  CTR  was 
identified as one of the key priorities of European criminal law. 

With the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 on the European Union Agency for 
Criminal  Justice  Cooperation5  (‘Eurojust  Regulation’)  in  December  2019,  Eurojust  was 
provided  with  a  new  legal  framework  and  transformed  into  an  EU  agency.  As  the  Eurojust 
Regulation was adopted before the establishment of the CTR, the CTR and its functions were 
not provided for in the Eurojust Regulation. This creates legal uncertainties, especially as the 
relationship between Council Decision 2005/671/JHA and the Eurojust Regulation is unclear. 

Further problems exist regarding the data national authorities share with Eurojust. Currently, 
Eurojust  often  does  not  receive  the  necessary  data  from  national  authorities  to  cross-check 
information  on  terrorism  cases  in  line  with  Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA  and  on  serious 
crimes in line with Article 21 of the Eurojust Regulation. The reasons for this are numerous. 
To begin with, Council Decision 2005/671/JHA is not sufficiently precise as it was intended 
to have a much broader scope. While it provides some guidance on what kind of information 
Member States must send to Eurojust, it is still not specific enough. In addition, information is 
often  not  shared  due  to  the  lack  of  secure  communication  channels  and  the  administrative 
burden caused by the manual extraction of the information, as more structured and automated 
exchanges of data are not possible without further digitalisation.  

Moreover, the current CMS and the data processing environment are limiting Eurojust’s more 
proactive  role  in  digitalised  judicial  cooperation.  The  technically  outdated  Eurojust  CMS  is 
unable to properly integrate and support an innovative tool requiring secure digital exchange 
and cross-checking of data such as the CTR. In addition, the technical design of the CMS is 
reflected in the Eurojust Regulation. The Eurojust Regulation restricts the set up of the CMS 
to temporary work files, aiming to support the administrative follow-up on ongoing cases, and 
an index6. It does not explicitly provide for an additional CTR database within the CMS to be 
set  up.  Processing  of  personal  data  outside  the  CMS  is  prohibited7.  Therefore,  the 
establishment of an additional CTR database outside the CMS is also not legally possible. 

Practical and legal challenges also exist regarding the cooperation with third country Liaison 
Prosecutors  (LPs).  Eurojust  has  concluded  cooperation  agreements  with  12  third  countries8 
before the entry into force of the Eurojust Regulation. These  agreements contain provisions 
on  data  exchange,  data  protection  safeguards  and  practical  cooperation.  To  facilitate  the 
cooperation, they allow LPs to be posted to Eurojust. These LPs work side by side with their 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 

Cross-border  Digital  Criminal  Justice,  Final  Report,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e38795b5-f633-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on 
the  European Union  Agency  for  Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing 
Council Decision 2002/187/JHA (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 138). 
See Article 23(1) of the Eurojust Regulation.  
See Article 23(6) of the Eurojust Regulation.  
Cooperation  agreements  exist  between  Eurojust  and  Albania,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia, 
Georgia,  Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Moldova,  Norway,  Switzerland,  Ukraine  and  the  USA.  Eurojust  has 
concluded  another  cooperation  agreement  with  Denmark,  which  is  not  a  member  of  Eurojust  in  line 
with  Protocol  22  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty.  Part  three,  Title  IV  of  the  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement 
between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of one part, and the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, also contains provisions on the future 
cooperation between national authorities of the UK and Eurojust. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

                                                 
colleagues  from  EU  Member  States  and  provide  support  in  cross-border  investigations 
involving  their  country  in  line  with  the  applicable  cooperation  agreements.  The  Eurojust 
Regulation, however, does not mention these LPs or their access to the CMS at all. Therefore, 
it  is  currently  unclear  how  data,  including  personal  data,  can  be  exchanged  efficiently  and 
securely with third country LPs in compliance with the Eurojust Regulation.  

To that end, this proposal seeks to enable Eurojust to fulfil its stronger, more proactive role 
envisaged in the Eurojust Regulation in supporting and strengthening the coordination and the 
cooperation between the national investigating and prosecuting authorities in serious crime, in 
particular terrorist offences, by: 

 

 

enabling  Eurojust  to  identify  links  between  parallel  cross-border  investigations  and 
prosecutions regarding terrorist offences more efficiently and to provide proactively 
feedback on these links to Member States; 

rendering  the  data  exchange  between  Member  States,  Eurojust  and  third  countries 
more efficient and secure. 

To achieve these objectives, the proposal  also aims to provide legal  certainty on the precise 
scope  of  the  obligation  to  share  information  in  terrorism  cases  and  the  relationship  with 
Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA,  requiring  substantive  amendments  to  the  Eurojust 
Regulation as well as Council Decision 2005/671/JHA.  

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

The  proposal  was  announced  in  the  Commission’s  Communication  on  the  digitalisation  of 
justice in the EU9 as part of a broader initiative to enable the secure electronic communication 
and exchange of information and documents between courts, national authorities, and justice 
and home affairs  agencies.  In line with  the Communication, it builds on e-CODEX10 as  the 
gold standard for secure digital communication in cross-border judicial proceedings. As part 
of the digitalisation of justice package and together with the initiative on the digitalisation of 
cross-border judicial cooperation and the initiative on Joint Investigation Teams collaboration 
platform,  it  is  one  of  the  proposals  listed  in  the  2021  Commission  work  plan  under  the 
heading ‘A New Push for European Democracy’11. 

The proposal also takes into account the Commission proposal for a Directive (EU) […/…] of 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council12  amending  Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA  in 
order  to  align  it  with  Directive  (EU)  2016/68013  (the  Data  Protection  Law  Enforcement 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Commission  Communication  on  the  Digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  European  Union  -  A  toolbox  of 
opportunities, COM(2020) 710 final, 2.12.2020. 
e-CODEX is is a software package that enables connection between national systems, allowing users, 
such  as  judicial  authorities,  legal  practitioners  and  members  of  the  public,  to  send  and  receive 
documents,  legal  forms,  evidence  and  other  information  in  a  swift  and  safe  manner.  e-CODEX  is 
already used by the e-evidence digital exchange system (eEDES) and certain pilot projects. To ensure 
its long-term sustainability, the Commission has adopted a proposal to entrust its further development 
and maintenance to the EU Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the 
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. 
Commission  Communication  Commission  Work  Programme  2021,  A  Union  of  vitality  in  a  world  of 
fragility, COM(2020) 690 final. 
Directive  (EU)  […/…]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Council  Decision 
2005/671/JHA, as regards its alignment with EU rules on the protection of personal data (OJ L ...). 
Directive  (EU)  2016/680  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for 
the  purposes  of  the  prevention,  investigation,  detection  or  prosecution  of  criminal  offences  or  the 

EN 

3 

  EN 

                                                 
 
Directive – LED). Close coordination will be necessary throughout the legislative process to 
ensure consistency of the amendments. 

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

The  importance  of  improving  the  digital  exchange  of  data  on  terrorism  cases  and  of 
modernising Eurojust’s CMS has been stressed in several high-level documents, such as the 
EU Security Union strategy14, the Counter-Terrorism agenda for the EU15 and the EU strategy 
to  tackle  Organised  Crime16.  In  the  latter,  the  Commission  announced  it  would  support 
modernising  Eurojust’s  CMS  to  help  Eurojust  provide  feedback  to  national  authorities  and 
detect judicial links between ongoing investigations. 

The proposal also fully takes account of the mandate, with which the Council authorised the 
Commission to negotiate further cooperation agreements on the cooperation between Eurojust 
and 13 further third countries17.  

It also takes account of Eurojust’s cooperation with other EU bodies or agencies, namely the 
European Public Prosecutor’s Office18, Europol as the EU agency for police cooperation19, the 
European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)20,  and  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency 
(Frontex)21,  and  the  importance  of  secure  data  exchange  and  the  establishment  of  hit/no-hit 
connections between some of them. 

Given  the  highly  sensitive  nature  of  the  information  exchanged,  it  is  essential  that  the 
implementation of the toolbox approach on the digitalisation of justice, including through this 
proposal,  takes  place  in  a  way  that  guarantees  strong  cybersecurity  standards.  This  is 
consistent  with  the  approach  outlined  in  the  EU's  Cybersecurity  Strategy22  and  the 
Commission’s proposal for a Directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity 
across  the  Union  (NIS2)23,  aiming  to  improve  further  the  cybersecurity  capacities  of  public 
and  private  entities,  competent  authorities  and  the  Union  as  a  whole  in  the  field  of 
cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. While judiciary in Member States is not in 
the  scope  of  NIS2  proposal  it  is  of  essence  that  Member  States  will  put  in  place  national 
measures that would ensure a comparable level of cybersecurity. 

execution  of  criminal  penalties,  and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data,  and  repealing  Council 
Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). 
Commission Communication on the EU Security Union strategy, COM(2020) 605 final. 
Commission Communication on a Counter-Terrorism agenda for the EU, COM(2020) 795 final. 
Commission  Communication  on  the  EU  strategy  to  tackle  Organised  Crime  2021-2025,  COM(2021) 
170 final. 
Council Decision (EU) 2021/7072 of 16 March 2021. 
Council  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1939  of  12  October  2017  implementing  enhanced  cooperation  on  the 
establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/794  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2016  on  the 
European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Cooperation  (Europol)  and  replacing  and  repealing 
Council  Decisions  2009/371/JHA,  2009/934/JHA,  2009/935/JHA,  2009/936/JHA  and  2009/968/JHA 
(OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53). 
Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  883/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 
September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council 
Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1). 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on 
the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  and  repealing  Regulations  (EU)  No  1052/2013  and  (EU) 
2016/1624 (OJ L 295, 14.11.2019, p. 1). 
JOIN/2020/18 final. 
COM 2020/823 final. 

14 
15 
16 

17 
18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
23 

EN 

4 

  EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  amending  the  Eurojust  Regulation  is  Article  85  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  Under  Article  85  TFEU,  Eurojust’s  structure, 
operation, field of action and tasks are to be determined by a regulation. This also includes the 
establishment of secure communication channel(s) between EU Member States and Eurojust 
as well as the cooperation of Eurojust with third country LPs seconded at Eurojust.  

As regards the amendments of Council Decision 2005/671/JHA concerning the carve-out of 
references  to  Eurojust,  those  amendments  are  of  a  purely  consequential  nature  to  the 
amendments regarding the Eurojust Regulation. Hence, they can be also based on Article 85 
TFEU. 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

According to the principle of subsidiarity laid down in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European 
Union (TEU), action at EU level should only be taken when the aims cannot be  sufficiently 
achieved by Member States alone and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the 
proposed action, be better achieved at EU level. There is also a need to match the nature and 
intensity of a given measure to the identified problem. 

As terrorism offences are often of a cross-border nature, action at national level alone cannot 
counter  them  effectively.  That  is  why  Member  States  choose  to  work  together  to  tackle  the 
threats  posed  by  terrorism.  They  seek  to  coordinate  their  judicial  response  and  cooperate  to 
address  shared  challenges.  As  the  EU  agency  for  criminal  justice  cooperation,  Eurojust  is  a 
strong  expression  of  this  endeavour  by  the  Member  States  to  keep  their  citizens  safe  by 
working together. 

There is a specific need for EU action because the measures envisaged have an intrinsic EU 
dimension.  They  aim  at  improving  the  ability  of  Eurojust  to  act.  It  is  Eurojust’s  mission  to 
support and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national judicial authorities in 
relation  to  serious  crime  including  terrorism  affecting  two  or  more  Member  States  or 
requiring  a  prosecution  on  common  bases.  This  objective  can  only  be  achieved  at  the  EU 
level, in line with the subsidiarity principle. Member States cannot create a more appropriate 
legal framework for the functioning of the CTR and amending Decision 2005/671/JHA alone. 
It is therefore up to the EU to establish the legally binding instruments to achieve these results 
in line with the powers conferred upon it by the EU treaties. 

• 

Proportionality 

According to the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TEU, there is a need to 
match  the  nature  and  intensity  of  a  given  measure  to  the  identified  problem.  All  problems 
addressed  in  this  proposal  call  for  EU-level  support  for  Member  States  to  tackle  these 
problems effectively. 

Article 1  and Article 2 of the proposal aim at better integrating the CTR in Eurojust’s legal 
and  technical  framework  and  improving  the  cooperation  with  third  country  LPs.  Without 
these  amendments,  Eurojust  is  unable  to  identify  links  between  simultaneous  investigations 
and prosecutions. It cannot fulfil its crucial role in supporting and strengthening cooperation 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
between  Member  States’  national  authorities  in  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  serious 
forms of crime, especially terrorism. To enable Eurojust to fully perform its crucial task, it is 
necessary to ensure the coordinated judicial follow-up. 

Due  to  the  increasing  cross-border  nature  of  organised  crime  and  terrorist  organisations, 
facilitated  by  the  use  of  digital  communication  tools,  a  more  coordinated  approach  is  also 
needed  regarding  third  countries.  Investigations  and  prosecutions  often  involve  authorities 
from outside the EU. Therefore, in line with the principle of proportionality, the proposal does 
not go beyond what is necessary to achieve this objective. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

Article 1 of the proposal amends the Eurojust Regulation. Article 85 TFEU provides the legal 
basis for the Eurojust Regulation. It provides for Eurojust to be governed by a regulation to be 
adopted in line with the ordinary legislative procedure. 

Article 2 of the proposal aims at amending a Council Decision, which was adopted before the 
entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon  in  2009.  As  these  amendments  are  of  purely 
consequential nature to the amendments of the Eurojust Regulation, they can be  included as 
an ancillary matter in the regulation amending the Eurojust Regulation. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Stakeholder consultations 

An  extensive  targeted  consultation  was  carried  out  to  ensure  the  broad  participation  of 
relevant  stakeholders  in  the  preparation  of  the  proposal.  Consultations  included  bilateral 
contacts, stakeholder and expert meetings, written contribution and a survey of practitioners. 

The  Commission  gathered  a  broad  and  balanced  range  of  views  on  this  issue  by  giving  the 
opportunity  to  all  relevant  parties  to  express  their  opinions.  In  particular,  Member  States, 
national authorities such as the national correspondents for terrorism matters, prosecutors and 
judges,  Eurojust,  its  national  desks  and  administration,  the  European  Counter-Terrorism 
Coordinator,  Europol,  academics,  fundamental  rights  and  data  protection  stakeholders  were 
included in the consultation process. 

In addition, the issue was discussed, on 17 June 2021, in the Commission's Expert Group on 
EU  Criminal  policy,  consisting  of  academics  and  practitioners  in  EU  criminal  law,  and,  on 
24 June 2021,  the  Commission’s  Digital  Criminal  Justice  Expert  Group,  consisting  of 
Member States experts. 

All stakeholders broadly welcomed the initiative and agreed with the problem areas identified. 
The stakeholders were quite clear about the information to be shared with Eurojust: it should 
be  the  data  necessary  to  identify  subjects  of  investigations.  Overall,  the  respondents  were 
satisfied with the extent of data collected through the current Eurojust CTR template.  

There was a strong support to introduce secure communication channels between the Member 
States and Eurojust. Eurojust would prefer secure communication channels for all operational 
personal data sent to Eurojust. Many stakeholders underlined that the current CMS would not 
be able to fulfil the tasks envisaged for the CTR.  

EN 

6 

  EN 

There was a general agreement that LPs should have operational access to the CMS. Member 
States  and  Eurojust  practitioners  pointed  out  that  third  countries,  which  have  concluded  a 
cooperation agreement and are therefore able to post a LP to Eurojust, should be able to open 
and close cases independently.  

Collection and use of expertise 

• 
The  proposal  is  based  on  the  findings  of  the  Digital  Criminal  Justice  study24.  The  study 
reviewed  the  needs  and  options  to  create  a  ‘Cross-Border  Digital  Criminal  Justice’,  a  fast, 
reliable  and  secure  IT  infrastructure  to  enable  national  prosecution  authorities  in  Member 
States  to  interact  with  their national  counterparts, Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies 
and EU bodies in the JHA area.  

• 

Impact assessment 

No  impact  assessment  was  conducted,  as  the  proposal  mainly  aims  at  establishing  an  up  to 
date  technical  solution  for  supporting  Member  States’  authorities  and  Eurojust,  without 
changing the main principles, which underpin the existing legal cooperation framework. 

However, the Commission services prepared an analytical supporting document in the form of 
a  staff  working  document25,  which  accompanies  the  proposal.  The  staff  working  document 
contains  a  detailed  problem  description,  looks  at  the  underlying  drivers  and  sets  out  the 
objectives of the proposal. It analyses the proposed solution in the light of efficacy, but also 
potential impacts on fundamental rights.  

In the analytical supporting document, the main problems identified were that Eurojust does 
not receive comprehensive information on cases from the competent national authorities, that 
the Eurojust CMS does not support the automated identification of links and that cooperation 
with third country liaison prosecutors is not efficient. As solution it is suggested to clarify and 
reinforce the obligation to  share information  on terrorism cases with  Eurojust, to  modernise 
the Eurojust CMS and to improve the legal basis for cooperation with third country LPs.  

The  improved  efficiency  of  data-exchange  between  national  authorities  and  Eurojust, 
including  the  use  of  secure  communication  channel(s)  is  expected  to  improve  Eurojust’s 
abilities  to  identify  links  between  ongoing  and  concluded  proceedings  significantly.  The 
modernisation  of  Eurojust’s  data  processing  environment  has  the  same  objective.  The 
identification  of  such  links  is  expected  to  help  the  judicial  authorities  at  different  stages  of 
national  proceedings  to  identify  and  prosecute  successfully  suspects  of  terrorist  offences  or 
those  involved  in  other  serious  crimes  and  with  connection  to  such  suspects.  Enabling 
Eurojust  to  support the Member States with  its full potential should  strengthen significantly 
the judicial response in the fight against terrorism and other forms of serious crime. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

Given  the  importance  of  processing  personal  data  for  law  enforcement  purposes  and 
Eurojust’s  support  activities,  the  proposal  sheds  light  on  the  need  to  ensure  full  compliance 
with fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These include the 
right to the protection of personal data26 and the right to respect for private life27. This is of 

24 

25 
26 
27 

Cross-border  Digital  Criminal  Justice,  Final  Report,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e38795b5-f633-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 
SWD(2021) 391. 
Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter ‘the Charter’). 
Article 7 of the Charter. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

                                                 
particular  importance  since  the  proposal  involves  the  processing  of  sensitive  personal  data 
relating to criminal investigations and convictions as well as biometric data. Given that it is 
one  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  proposal  to  enable  Eurojust  to  establish  links  between 
terrorism  investigations,  and  this  is  only  possible  when  Eurojust  receives  sufficient 
information,  there  is  a  need  to  increase  the  amount  of  data  sent  to  Euojust.  For  this  data, 
sufficient  safeguards  need  to  be  put  in  place.  This  includes  a  strict  purpose  limitation, 
especially when it concerns biometric data. The use of secure communication channel(s) and 
the  new  modernised  CMS  will  contribute  to  better  protection  of  the  data  processed  by 
Eurojust.  In  the  design  of  the  CMS,  a  focus  will  be  put  on  data  protection  by  default  and 
design. In addition, the underlying principle of data control by national members and national 
competent authorities will not be altered. The accompanying staff working document assesses 
the impact of the proposal on fundamental rights and safeguards in more detail.  

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

This proposal would have an impact on Eurojust’s budget and its staff needs. It is estimated 
that  a  further  EUR  33  million  would  be  needed  under  the  legislative  financial  statement 
accompanying the proposal.  

Based on the analysis of the Digital Criminal Justice study,28 the costs for a new redesigned 
CMS are estimated at EUR 31 million including build, operations and maintenance costs for 
two years.29. Eurojust has already received EUR 9,5 million through budget transfer from the 
European Public Prosecutors Office (EPPO) in October 2021, which is  why the outstanding 
costs for the CMS are estimated at EUR 21,5 million. In addition, around EUR 11,5 million 
will be needed to cover additional staffing needs for the building and operation period of four 
years.  These  25  additional  posts  would  be  permanent  posts  to  ensure  that  Eurojust  has  the 
resources to implement its tasks.  

The reinforced tasks for Eurojust under this proposal would therefore require more financial 
and human resources than compared to the resources earmarked in the 2021-2027 EU budget 
(MFF). 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The  timeline  to  implement  a  new  Eurojust  CMS,  secure  communication  channels  and  a 
communication tool to exchange data in a structured manner are based on the analysis in the 
Digital  Criminal  Justice  study30.  For  the  CTR,  after  a  preparatory  phase  of  six  months,  the 
procurement  and  implementation  phase  would  require  about  20  months.  Therefore,  the  new 
technical solution should be operational in about two years after adoption of the proposal. For 
the establishment of the secure communication channels, an implementing act is needed.  

28 

29 

30 

Cross-border  Digital  Criminal  Justice,  Final  Report,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e38795b5-f633-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en, p. 244. 
The  study  assumed  a  maintenance  period  and  a  total  amount  of  EUR  39  million.  As  the  current  EU 
budget  (multiannual  financial  framework,  MFF)  only  covers  the  period  until  2027,  the  maintenance 
costs for the years 2028 and 2029 were deducted from this amount. 
Cross-border  Digital  Criminal  Justice,  Final  Report,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e38795b5-f633-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en, pp. 265 ff. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

                                                 
Monitoring and evaluating the digitalisation of Eurojust’s data processing will be important to 
ensure  its  effectiveness  and  its  compliance  with  fundamental  rights.  The  monitoring  and 
evaluation will largely be performed under the Eurojust Regulation in force. The Commission 
will  carry  out  an  independent  evaluation  on  the  implementation  of  the  Eurojust  Regulation 
and Eurojust’s activities by 13 December 2024. The evaluation will be carried out every five 
years  to  assess  the  implementation  and  impact  of  the  Regulation  and  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of Eurojust in line with Article 69(1) of the Eurojust Regulation. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

The proposal states that the Eurojust Regulation and Council Decision 2005/671/JHA should 
be  amended  to  clarify  and  strengthen  Member  States’  legal  obligation  to  share  data  on 
terrorist  offences  with  Eurojust.  The  conditions  under  which  third  country  LPs  seconded  to 
Eurojust  can  get  access  to  the  CMS  in  line  with  the  applicable  data  protection  rules  should 
also  be  clarified.  Secure  communication  channels  and  a  more  flexible  data  processing 
environment should also be put in place. 

Article 1 of the Regulation amends the Eurojust Regulation: 

To ensure that Eurojust can fulfil its role in the cooperation with third countries, Article 1(1) 
of  the  proposal  clarifies  in  Article  3(5)  of  the  Eurojust  Regulation  that  Eurojust  can  also 
support  cases  between  one  Member  State  and  a  third  country  or  one  Member  State  and  an 
international  organisation.  The  latter  would  be  of  particular  relevance  for  the  potential 
cooperation with Interpol or the International Criminal Court, e.g. when it comes to battlefield 
evidence. 

Article 1(2) of the proposal introduces an obligation of the Member States to designate one or 
more  national  terrorism  correspondents  and  to  provide  them  with  sufficient  powers, 
previously  based  on  Article  2(2)  of  Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA,  in  the  Eurojust 
Regulation, adding a new paragraph 2a to Article 20 of the Eurojust Regulation. Article 1(3) 
is  a  consequential  amendment,  following  the  inclusion  of  the  obligation  to  provide 
information  in  terrorism cases  in  the Eurojust Regulation  and to  provide  for a more  general 
obligation to provide data in a structured manner to Eurojust in a new Article 22a.  

Article 1(4) of the proposal introduces a new Article 21a to the Eurojust Regulation. Article 
21a clarifies and strengthens the obligation to provide information on terrorism proceedings, 
previously  based  on  Article  2(3)  in  conjunction  with  Article  2(5)  of  Council  Decision 
2005/671/JHA. Article 21a sets out the cases, in which Member States are obliged to provide 
information  on  criminal  investigations  and  judicial  proceedings  for  terrorist  offences,  more 
precisely.  In  addition,  it  identifies  the  stage  of  the  criminal  investigations  and  national 
proceedings and the kind of information more clearly. 

Article 1(5) of the proposal provides, in a new Article 22a, for the establishment and use of 
secure  communication  channels  between  all  Member  States  and  Eurojust  when  exchanging 
sensitive data. Article 22a also obliges Member States to provide for semi-automated update 
of  structured  data  from  national  databases.  Semi-automated  means  a  transmission  mode, 
which is partly automated and partly human controlled. Article 22b and Article 22c lay down 
a framework for the Commission to adopt implementing acts. 

The  amendments  to  Article  23  of  the  Eurojust  Regulation,  contained  in  Article  1(6)  of  the 
proposal, aim at making the Eurojust Regulation’s data processing rules a bit more flexible. 
While  the  main  principles  remain  in  place,  it  will  now  be  possible  to  store  information 
provided  under  Article  21  on  serious  crimes  and  under  Article  21a  on  counter-terrorism 
proceedings in a different structure and for a longer period than in the current temporary work 

EN 

9 

  EN 

files. The proposal deletes the technical details relating to the CMS, to allow the system to be 
modernised.  That  said,  the  principle  of  temporary  storage  will  also  be  maintained  for  these 
data, even though the retention periods are slightly longer for information under Article 21a. 
The revised Article 23 sets out the purposes of the CMS more clearly.  

Article  1(6)  also  amends  Article  24  of  the  Eurojust  Regulation,  maintaining  the  current 
principle  of  information  management  in  the  CMS.  Article  24(1)  underlines  the  control  and 
responsibility  of  national  members  for  the  data  in  the  CMS.  In  line  with  Article  24(2), 
national members continue to decide the access rights  to the information managed by them. 
Article  24(3)  introduces  a  legal  basis  for  more  automated  follow-up  on  cross-links,  in  case 
national authorities authorise data sharing with certain parties before a link is detected.  

Finally,  Article  1(6)  brings  about  consequential  amendments  to  Article  25  of  the  Eurojust 
Regulation,  which  stem  from  deleting  the  technical  details  from  Article  23  of  the  Eurojust 
Regulation.  

Article 1(7) amends Article 27 of the Eurojust Regulation, to allow for the continued handling 
of data in terrorism cases, in which the cases were concluded under national law. To enable 
the  effective  detection  of  links  between  investigations  and  prosecutions,  also  data  about 
previous investigations, including those which ended in an acquittal or which were concluded 
in another way, may continued to be processed for a certain amount of time. 

Article 1(8) introduces new, longer retention  periods for data provided under Article 21a  of 
the  Eurojust  Regulation  to  ensure  data  are  stored  long  enough  to  enable  more  effective 
detection  of  cross-links  in  terrorism  cases.  Data  in  cases  that  did  not  result  in  a  conviction, 
have shorter retention periods to comply with the proportionality principle.  

To  clarify  the  cooperation  with  third  country  LPs  at  Eurojust,  Article  1(9)  of  the  proposal 
provides for a new Article 54a of the Eurojust Regulation, granting third country LPs access 
to  the  CMS.  However,  the  provision  does  not  establish  a  legal  basis  for  sharing  data.  The 
transfer  of  data  to  a  LP  is  a  data  transfer  to  a  third  country  and  therefore  always  has  to  be 
conducted in line with Article 56 of the Eurojust Regulation. 

Article 1(10) amends Article 80 of the Eurojust Regulation. It contains transitional provisions, 
taking  into  account  that  it  will  take  a  certain  amount  of  time  until  the  necessary  technical 
infrastructure is in place. 

Article 1(11) introduces  a new  Annex  III,  setting  out the information  to  be sent to  Eurojust 
under Article 21a of the Eurojust Regulation. The list includes biometric data, fingerprints and 
photographs  to  ensure  the  reliable  identification  of  suspects,  taking  into  account  the 
unreliability of alphanumerical information, especially concerning third country nationals. In 
terrorism proceedings, a photograph is often the only link to the suspects in the investigative 
phase,  which  is  why  facial  recognition  should  also  to  be  included.  This  information  should 
only to be provided if the national judicial authorities have access to it. 

Article 2 amends Council Decision 2005/671/JHA on the following points: 

To  clarify  the  relationship  between  Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA  and  the  Eurojust 
Regulation,  the  references  to  Eurojust  in  the  Council  Decision  are  carved  out.  Article  2(1), 
Article 2(2) point (a) and point (c) of the proposed Regulation delete Article 1 point (c) and 
Article  2(2)  and  (5)  from  the  Decision.  In  Article  2(2)  point  (b),  the  proposal  removes  the 
reference to Eurojust from Article 2(3) of the Decision.  

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
 
2021/0393 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and the Council and 
Council Decision 2005/671/JHA, as regards the digital information exchange in terrorism 
cases 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 
85 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure31, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council32 established 
Eurojust and sets out its tasks, competence and functions. 
Council Decision 2005/671/JHA33 sets out that in order to combat terrorism it is essential 
to  have  the  fullest  and  most  up-to-date  information  possible.  It  obliges  Member  States’ 
competent national  authorities to provide Eurojust  with information on prosecutions and 
convictions for terrorist offences, which affect or may affect two or more Member States. 

Inconsistencies in the interpretation of Decision 2005/671/JHA cause that information is 
not shared at the right time, not the appropriate information is shared or information is not 
shared  at  all.  Eurojust  needs  to  receive  sufficient  information  to  identify  links  between 
cross-border investigations. 

Assisting  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  in  ensuring  the  best  possible 
coordination of investigations and prosecutions, including the identification of links, is an 
important task of Eurojust under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. It enables Eurojust to take a 
more proactive  approach and provide better services to  the Member States, for  example 
suggesting the initiation of investigations, identifying coordination needs, potential cases 
of ne bis in idem and prosecution gaps.  

(5) 

In September 2019, Eurojust has set up the European Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register 
based  on  Decision  2005/671/JHA  with  the  specific  objective  to  identify  potential  links 

31 
32 

33 

[….]. 
Regulation  (EU)  2018/1727  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  November  2018 on  the 
European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council 
Decision 2002/187/JHA (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 138). 
Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA  of  20  September  2005  on  the  exchange  of  information  and  cooperation 
concerning terrorist offences (OJ L 253, 29.09.2005, p. 22). 

EN 

11 

  EN 

                                                 
(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

between  judicial  proceedings  against  suspects  of  terrorist  offences  and  possible 
coordination needs stemming from these. 

As  the  register  has  been  set  up  after  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1727  had  already  been 
adopted,  the  European  Judicial  Counter-Terrorism  Register  is  neither  technically  well 
integrated  at  Eurojust  nor  legally  well  integrated  in  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1727. 
Therefore, it is necessary to remedy that.  

To  combat  terrorism  effectively,  efficient  exchange  of  information  for  investigation  or 
prosecution  of  terrorist  offences  between  competent  authorities  and  Union  agencies  is 
crucial.  It  is  essential  to  have  the  most  complete  and  updated  information  possible.  The 
persistence of the terrorist threat and the complexity of the phenomenon raise the need for 
an ever greater exchange of information. 

As terrorist organisations are increasingly involved in other forms of serious crimes, such 
as trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking or money laundering, it is also necessary 
to cross-check judicial proceedings against such serious crimes.  

In  order  to  enable  Eurojust  to  identify  cross-links  between  cross-border  judicial 
proceedings  against suspects  of terrorist offences  as  well as  cross-links  between  judicial 
proceedings  against  suspects  of  terrorist  offences  and  information  processed  at  Eurojust 
relating  to  other  cases  of  serious  crimes,  it  is  essential  that  Eurojust  receives  sufficient 
information to enable Eurojust to cross-check this data.  

(10)  The  competent  authorities  need  to  know  exactly  what  kind  of  information  they  have  to 
transmit to Eurojust, at what stage of the national proceedings and in which cases, in order 
to  provide  such  data.  This  is  expected  to  increase  the  information  Eurojust  receives 
significantly.  

(11)  Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 is the reference 

point for national authorities to define terrorist offences as implemented in national law.  

(12)  For  the  identification  of  cross-links  between  terrorism  investigations  and  judicial 
proceedings  against  suspects  of  terrorist  offences,  reliable  identification  data  is  crucial. 
Due  to  the  uncertainties  regarding  alphanumerical  data  especially  for  third  country 
nationals, it should be possible to exchange biometric data. Due to the sensitive nature of 
biometric data and the impact processing of biometric data has on the respect for private 
and family life and the protection of personal data, as enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union,  a  strict  necessity  test  should  be 
applied by the competent authorities and Eurojust in each case.  

(13)  As information about existing cross-links to other judicial proceedings is most useful at an 
early  stage  of  the  investigation,  it  is  necessary  that  the  competent  authorities  provide 
information  to  Eurojust  as  soon  as  judicial  authorities  are  involved.  If  the  competent 
national  authorities  are  already  aware  of  cross-links,  they  should  inform  Eurojust 
accordingly.  

(14) 

In  order  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  the  data  in  the  European  Judicial  Counter-Terrorism 
Register,  to  identify  cross-links  early  and  to  ensure  time  limits  are  respected,  the 
competent  national  authorities  should  update  the  information  provided  regularly.  Such 

34 

Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating 
terrorism  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA  and  amending  Council  Decision 
2005/671/JHA (OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6). 

EN 

12 

  EN 

                                                 
updates should include new information relating to the person under investigation, judicial 
decisions  such  as  pre-trial  detention  or  opening  of  the  court  proceedings  and  judicial 
cooperation requests or identified links with other jurisdictions.  

(15)  Given the sensitive nature of judicial proceedings against suspects of terrorist offences, it 
is not always possible for the competent national authorities to share the information on 
terrorist  offences  at  the  earliest  stage.  Such  derogations  from  the  obligation  to  provide 
information should remain an exception. 

(16)  For the purposes of exchanging and processing sensitive data between competent national 
authorities and Eurojust for protecting such data against unauthorised disclosure and cyber 
secure 
future 
attacks,  and  without  prejudice 
communication  channels,  such  as  the  secure  communication  connections  referred  to  in 
Article 9 of Council Decision 2008/976/JHA35 or the decentralised IT system as defined 
in Regulation (EU) […/…] of the European Parliament and of the Council36 [Regulation 
on  the  digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation]  should  be  used.  In  order  to  exchange  data 
securely  and  protect  the  integrity  of  the  communication  and  data  exchange,  the  case 
management system should be connected to such secure communication systems and meet 
high cybersecurity standards.  

technological  developments, 

to 

(17) 

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation as regards 
the  establishment  and  use  of  the  decentralised  IT  system  for  the  cases  not  covered  by 
Regulation (EU) […/…] of the European Parliament and of the Council37 [Regulation on 
the  digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation],  implementing  powers  should  be  conferred  on 
the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) 
No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council38. 

(18)  The  transmission  of  unstructured  data  makes  manual  intervention  necessary,  creates 
additional administrative burden, and reduces the quality of the results of cross-checking. 
Therefore, national competent authorities should transmit the data in a structured manner 
while  respecting  minimal  interoperability  requirements  as  defined  in  the  European 
Interoperability  Framework39.  In  addition,  the  transfer  of  data  should  be  automated  as 
much as possible to lessen the administrative burden of national authorities and to ensure 
the necessary data is provided regularly and quickly. 

(19)  A modernized case management system is necessary for Eurojust to process the sensitive 
personal data securely. The new system needs to integrate and enable the functionalities 
of  the  European  Judicial  Counter-Terrorism  Register  and  improve  the  capacities  of 
Eurojust regarding link detection.  

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

Council  Decision  2008/976/JHA  of  16  December  2008  on  the  European  Judicial  Network  (OJ  L  348, 
24.12.2008, p. 130). 
Regulation  (EU)  […/…]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  digitalisation  of  judicial 
cooperation and access to justice in civil, commercial and criminal law cases (OJ L…). 
Regulation  (EU)  […/…]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  digitalisation  of  judicial 
cooperation and access to justice in civil, commercial and criminal law cases (OJ L…). 
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying 
down  the  rules  and  general  principles  concerning  mechanisms  for  control  by  the  Member  States  of  the 
Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). 
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/nifo-national-interoperability-framework-observatory/european-
interoperability-framework. 

EN 

13 

  EN 

                                                 
 
(20) 

It is important to maintain the control and responsibility of the national members for the 
data, which they receive from the national competent authorities. No operational personal 
data  should  be  shared  with  another  Member  State  by  default.  Operational  personal  data 
should only be shared in as far as national competent authorities authorise the exchange of 
data.  In order to  digitalise and speed up the follow up on potential links while ensuring 
full control over the data, handling codes should be introduced.  

(21)  Terrorist  activities  often  affect  two  or  more  Member  States.  Terrorism  already  had  a 
strong  transnational  component  in  the  past.  However,  with  the  use  and  availability  of 
electronic  communication,  transnational  collaboration  between  terrorist  offenders  has 
increased  significantly.  Therefore,  terrorist  offences  should  be  considered  per  se 
transnational  in  their  nature,  if  the  specific  circumstances  of  the  case  do  not  clearly 
indicate a purely national character. 

(22) 

Investigations  and  prosecutions  in  terrorism  cases  are  often  impeded  by  the  lack  of 
information exchange between national investigation and prosecution authorities. In order 
to be able to cross check new terrorist investigations also with previous investigations and 
establish  potential  links,  it  is  necessary  to  store  the  data  on  any  previous  investigations, 
not  only  on  convictions  and  to  extend  the  time  limits  for  storing  data  in  the  European 
Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register. However, it is necessary to ensure that such data is 
processed  for prosecution purposes only. The information may not  be used for anything 
else but identifying links with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and for the support 
of those investigations and prosecutions.  

(23)  Eurojust has concluded twelve cooperation agreements with third countries, which allow 
for the transfer of operational personal data and the secondment of a third country liaison 
prosecutor  to  Eurojust.  Moreover,  the  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement  between  the 
European  Union  and  the  United  Kingdom40  allows  for  the  secondment  of  a  liaison 
prosecutor.  In  March  2021,  the  Council  gave  the  Commission  a  mandate41  to  negotiate 
further cooperation agreements on the cooperation between Eurojust and thirteen further 
third states.  

(24)  While  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1727  provides  a  legal  basis  for  the  cooperation  and 
exchange  of  data  with  third  countries,  it  does  not  contain  any  rules  on  the  formal  and 
technical  aspects  of  the  cooperation  with  third  country  liaison  prosecutors  seconded  to 
Eurojust, in particular their access to the case management system. In the interest of legal 
certainty,  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1727  should  provide  an  explicit  legal  basis  for  the 
cooperation between Eurojust and the third country liaison prosecutors and their access to 
the  Eurojust  case  management  system.  Eurojust  should  ensure  adequate  safeguards  and 
security measures for the protection of data and fundamental rights through the technical 
setup and internal rules.  

(25) 

In  the  interest  of  clarity,  the  relationship  between  the  exchange  of  information  between 
national  competent  authorities  on  terrorism  cases  with  Eurojust  under  Decision 
2005/671/JHA  and  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1727  should  be  clarified.  Therefore,  the 
relevant  provisions  should  be  deleted  from  Decision  2005/671/JHA  and  be  added  to 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1727.  

40 

41 

Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (OJ L 149, 30.4.2021, p.10). 
Council Decision (EU) 2021/7072 of 16 March 2021. 

EN 

14 

  EN 

                                                 
(26)  While  some  Member  States’  competent  national  authorities  are  already  connected  to 
secure  telecommunication  connection  as  referred  to  in  Article  9  of  Council  Decision 
2008/976/JHA42,  many  competent  authorities  are  not  yet  connected 
to  secure 
telecommunication connection or secure communication channels. In order to ensure that 
the  Member  States  have  sufficient  time  to  provide  such  a  connection  for  the  competent 
authorities, a transitional period for implementation should be granted. 

(27) 

[In  accordance  with  Articles  1,  2  and  4a(1)  of  Protocol  No  21  on  the  position  of  the 
United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice, 
annexed  to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking 
part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.] 
OR [In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of 
the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice, 
annexed  to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union,  Ireland  has  notified  [,  by  letter  of  …,]  its  wish  to  take  part  in  the 
adoption and application of this Regulation.] 

(28) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  Protocol  No  22  on  the  Position  of  Denmark 
annexed  to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not 
bound by it or subject to its application. 

(29)  The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42 of 

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered an opinion on XX/XX 20XX, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 

Regulation (EU) 2017/1727 is amended as follows: 

(1) 

in Article 3, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:  

“5.  Eurojust  may  also  assist  with  investigations  and  prosecutions  that  only  affect  a 
Member State and a third country or a Member State and an international organisation, 
provided that a cooperation agreement or arrangement establishing cooperation pursuant 
to  Article  52  has  been  concluded  with  that  third  country  or  that  international 
organisation, or provided that in a specific case there is an essential interest in providing 
such assistance.”; 

(2) 

in Article 20, the following paragraph 2a is inserted: 

“2a.  Each  Member  State  shall  designate  a  competent  national  authority  as  Eurojust 
national  correspondent  for  terrorism  matters.  This  national  correspondent  for  terrorism 
matters shall be a judicial or other competent authority. Where the national legal system 
requires,  more  than  one  authority  can  be  designated.  The  national  correspondent  for 
terrorism matters shall have access to all relevant information in accordance with Article 
21a(1). It shall be competent to collect such information and to send it to Eurojust.”; 

42 

Council  Decision  2008/976/JHA  of  16  December  2008  on  the  European  Judicial  Network,  (OJ  L  348, 
24.12.2008, p. 130). 

EN 

15 

  EN 

                                                 
(3) 

Article 21 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

paragraph 9 is replaced by the following: 

“9.  This  Article  shall  not  affect  other  obligations  regarding  the  transmission  of 
information to Eurojust.”; 

(b)  paragraph 10 is deleted; 

(4) 

the following Article 21a is inserted: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

“Article 21a 

Exchange of information on terrorism cases 

The competent national authorities shall inform their national members of any ongoing 
or  concluded  criminal  investigations  supervised  by  judicial  authorities,  prosecutions, 
court proceedings and court decisions on terrorist offences as soon as judicial authorities 
are involved. 

Terrorist  offences  for  the  purpose  of  this  Article  are  offences  referred  to  in  Directive 
(EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council*. The obligation referred 
to in paragraph 1 shall apply to all terrorist offences regardless whether there is a known 
link  to  another  Member  State  or  third  country,  unless  the  case,  due  to  its  specific 
circumstances, clearly affects only one Member State.  

The information transmitted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include the operational 
personal data and non-personal data listed in Annex III. 

The  competent  national  authorities  shall  inform  their  national  member  without  delay 
about any relevant changes in the national proceedings.  

Without  prejudice  to  the  first  subparagraph,  the  national  authorities  shall  review  and 
provide an update on the information transmitted under paragraph 1 at least every three 
months.  

Paragraph 1 shall not apply where the sharing of information would jeopardise current 
investigations  or  the  safety  of  an  individual,  or  when  it  would  be  contrary  to  essential 
interests of the security of the Member State concerned. 

____________ 

* Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 
2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA 
and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6).”; 

(5) 

the following Articles 22a, 22b and 22c are inserted: 

“Article 22a 

Secure digital communication and data exchange between competent national authorities 
and Eurojust 

1. 

2. 

The communication between the competent national authorities and Eurojust under this 
Regulation  shall  be  carried  out  through  the  decentralised  IT  system  as  defined  in 
Regulation (EU) [.../…] of the European Parliament and of the Council* [Regulation on 
the digitalisation of judicial cooperation]. 

Where  exchange  of  information  in  accordance  with  paragraph  1  is  not  possible  due  to 
the unavailability of the decentralised IT system or due to exceptional circumstances, it 

EN 

16 

  EN 

shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means. Member States 
and Eurojust shall ensure that the alternative means of communication are reliable and 
provide an equivalent level of security.  

3. 

The  competent  national  authorities  shall  transmit  the  information  in  accordance  with 
Articles 21 and 21a to Eurojust in a semi-automated manner from national registers and 
in a structured way determined by Eurojust.  

__________ 

*  [Regulation  (EU)  […/…]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation of judicial cooperation](OJ L…). 

Article 22b 

Adoption of implementing acts by the Commission  

1. 

The Commission shall adopt the implementing acts necessary for the establishment and 
use of the decentralised IT system for communication under this Regulation, setting out 
the following: 

(a) 

the technical specifications defining the methods of communication by electronic 
means for the purposes of the decentralised IT system; 

(b) 

the technical specifications for communication protocols; 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

the  information  security  objectives  and  relevant  technical  measures  ensuring 
minimum  information  security  standards  and  a  high  level  of  cybersecurity 
standards  for  the  processing  and  communication  of  information  within  the 
decentralised IT system; 

the  minimum  availability  objectives  and  possible  related  technical  requirements 
for the services provided by the decentralised IT system; 

the  establishment  of  a  steering  committee  comprising  representatives  of  the 
Member  States  to  ensure  the  operation  and  maintenance  of  the  decentralised  IT 
system in order to meet the objectives of this Regulation. 

The implementing acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be adopted by [2 years after entry 
into force] in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 22c(2). 

Article 22c 

Committee Procedure 

The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee 
within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council*.  

Where reference is  made to  this paragraph,  Article 5 of Regulation  (EU) No 182/2011 
shall apply.  

Where  the  committee  delivers  no  opinion,  the  Commission  shall  not  adopt  the  draft 
implementing act and Article 5(4), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 
shall apply. 

__________ 

2. 

1. 

2. 

EN 

17 

  EN 

*  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 
February 2011 laying down the rules  and  general principles concerning mechanisms for 
control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ  L 
55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).”; 

(6) 

Articles 23, 24 and 25 are replaced by the following : 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

“Article 23 

Case Management System 

Eurojust  shall  establish  a  case  management  system  for  the  processing  of  operational 
personal data listed in Annex II, the data listed in Annex III and non-personal data.  

The purposes of the case management system shall be to: 

(a) 

(b) 

support the management and coordination of investigations and prosecutions 
for which Eurojust is providing assistance; 

ensure  secure  access  to  and  exchange  of  information  on  on-going 
investigations and prosecutions; 

(c) 

allow for the cross-checking of information and establishing cross-links; 

(d) 

allow for the extraction of data for operational and statistical purposes; 

(e) 

facilitate  monitoring  to  ensure  that  the  processing  of  operational  personal 
data  is  lawful  and  complies  with  this  Regulation  and  the  applicable  data 
protection rules. 

The  case  management  system  may  be  linked  to  the  secure  telecommunications 
connection referred to in Article 9 of Council Decision 2008/976/JHA* and other secure 
communication channel(s) in accordance with applicable Union law.  

In the performance of their duties, national members may process personal data on the 
individual cases, on which they are working, in accordance with this Regulation or other 
applicable instruments.  

They  shall  allow  the  Data  Protection  Officer  to  have  access  to  the  personal  data 
processed in the case management system. 

For  the  processing  of  operational  personal  data,  Eurojust  may  not  establish  any 
automated data file other than the case management system.  

The national members may, however, temporarily store and analyse personal data for the 
purpose  of  determining  whether  such  data  are  relevant  to  Eurojust’s  tasks  and  can  be 
included  in  the  operational  data  management  system.  That  data  may  be  held  for  up  to 
three months. 

Article 24 

Management of the information in the case management system 

1. 

The national member shall store the information transmitted to him or her in accordance 
with this Regulation or other applicable instruments in the case management system.  

The national member shall be responsible for the management of the data processed by 
that national member.  

EN 

18 

  EN 

2. 

3. 

The national member shall decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to keep access to the 
information restricted or to give access to it or to parts of it to other national members, to 
liaison  prosecutors  seconded  to  Eurojust,  to  authorised  Eurojust  staff  or  to  any  other 
person working on behalf of Eurojust who has received the necessary authorisation from 
the Administrative Director. 

The national member shall indicate, in general or specific terms, any restrictions on the 
further  handling,  access  and  transfer  of  the  information  if  a  cross-link  referred  to  in 
Article 23(2), point (c), has been identified. 

Article 25 

Access to the case management system at national level 

1. 

In  so  far  as  they  are  connected  to  the  case  management  system,  persons  referred  to  in 
Article 20(3) shall only have access to: 

(a) 

data  controlled  by  the  national  member  of  their  Member  State,  unless  the 
national  member,  who  has  decided  to  introduce  the  data  in  the  case 
management system, expressly denied such access; 

(b)  data  controlled  by  national  members  of  other  Member  States  and  to  which 
the  national  member  of  their  Member  State  has  received  access,  unless  the 
national member who controls the data expressly denied such access. 

2. 

3. 

The  national  member  shall,  within  the  limitations  provided  for  in  paragraph  1  of  this 
Article,  decide  on  the  extent  of  access,  which  is  granted  in  their  Member  State  to  the 
persons  referred  to  in  Article  20(3)  in  so  far  as  they  are  connected  to  the  case 
management system. 

Each  Member  State  shall  decide,  after  consultation  with  its  national  member,  on  the 
extent  of  access,  which  is  granted  in  that  Member  State  to  the  persons  referred  to  in 
Article 20(3) in so far as they are connected to the case management system. 

Member States shall notify Eurojust and the Commission of their decision regarding the 
implementation  of  the  first  subparagraph.  The  Commission  shall  inform  the  other 
Member States thereof. 

___________ 

*  Council  Decision  2008/976/JHA  of  16  December  2008  on  the  European  Judicial 
Network (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 130).”; 

(7) 

Article 27 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: 

“4.  Eurojust  may  process  special  categories  of  operational  personal  data  in  accordance 
with Article 76 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. Where such other data refer to witnesses 
or victims within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this Article, the decision to process them 
shall be taken by the national members concerned.”; 

(b) 

the following paragraph 5 is added: 

“5.  Where  operational  personal  data  is  transmitted  in  accordance  with  Article  21a, 
Eurojust  may  process  the  operational  personal  data  listed  in  Annex  III  of  the  following 
persons: 

EN 

19 

  EN 

 
(a) 

persons to whom, in accordance with the national law of the Member State 
concerned, there are serious grounds for believing that they have committed 
or  are  about  to  commit  a  criminal  offence  in  respect  of  which  Eurojust  is 
competent; 

(b)  persons who have been convicted of such offence. 

Eurojust may continue to process the operational personal data referred to in point (a) of 
the first subparagraph also after the proceedings have been concluded under the national 
law of the Member State concerned, even in case of an acquittal. Where the proceedings 
did not result in a conviction, processing of personal data may only take place in order to 
identify  links  with  other  ongoing  or  concluded  investigations  and  prosecutions  as 
referred to in Article 23(2), point (c).”; 

(8) 

Article 29 is amended as follows: 

(a) 

the following paragraph 1a is inserted: 

“1a.  Eurojust  shall  not  store  operational  personal  data  transmitted  in  accordance  with 
Article 21a beyond the first applicable date among the following dates: 

(a) 

the date on which prosecution is barred under the statute of limitations of all 
the Member States concerned by the investigation and prosecutions; 

(b)  5  years  after  the  date  on  which  the  judicial  decision  of  the  last  of  the 
Member States concerned by the investigation or prosecution became final, 3 
years in case of an acquittal.”; 

(b)  paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following: 

“2. Observance of the storage deadlines referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a of this Article 
shall  be  reviewed  constantly  by  appropriate  automated  processing  conducted  by 
Eurojust, particularly from the moment in which Eurojust ceases to provide support.  

A review of the need to store the data shall  also  be  carried out  every three  years after 
they were entered.  

If operational personal data referred to in Article 27(4) are stored for a period exceeding 
five years, the EDPS shall be informed thereof. 

3.  Before  one  of  the  storage  deadlines  referred  to  in  paragraphs  1  and  1a  expires, 
Eurojust shall review the need for the continued storage of the operational personal data 
where and as long as this is necessary to perform its tasks.  

It may decide by way of derogation to store those data until the following review. The 
reasons for the continued storage shall be justified and recorded. If no decision is taken 
on  the  continued  storage  of  operational  personal  data  at  the  time  of  the  review,  those 
data shall be deleted automatically.”; 

(9) 

in Section III, the following Article 54a is inserted: 

“Article 54a 

Third country liaison prosecutors 

1. 

A  liaison  prosecutor  from  a  third  country  may  be  seconded  to  Eurojust  based  on  a 
cooperation agreement concluded before 12 December 2019 between Eurojust and that 
third  country  or  an  international  agreement  between  the  Union  and  the  third  country 
pursuant to Article 218 TFEU allowing for the secondment of a liaison prosecutor. 

EN 

20 

  EN 

2. 

3. 

The  rights  and  obligations  of  the  liaison  prosecutor  shall  be  set  out  in  the  cooperation 
agreement or international agreement referred to in paragraph 1 or working arrangement 
concluded in accordance with Article 47(3). 

Liaison  prosecutors  seconded  to  Eurojust  shall  be  granted  access  to  the  case 
management system for the secure exchange of data.  

Transfers  of  operational  personal  data  to  third  country  liaison  prosecutors  through  the 
case management system may only take place under the rules and conditions set out in 
this  Regulation,  the  agreement  with  the  respective  country  or  other  applicable  legal 
instruments.  

Article  24(1),  the  second  sentence  and  Article  24(2)  shall  apply  mutatis  mutandis  to 
liaison prosecutors.  

The College shall lay down the detailed conditions of access.”; 

(10) 

In Article 80, the following paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 are added: 

“8. Eurojust may continue to use the case management system composed of temporary 
work files and of an index until [the first day of the month following the period of two 
years after the adoption of this Regulation], if the new case management system is not in 
place yet. 

9.  The  competent  authorities  and  Eurojust  may  continue  to  use  other  channels  of 
communication  than  referred  to  in  Article  22a(1)  until  [the  first  day  of  the  month 
following the period of two years after the adoption of the implementing act referred to 
in Article 22b of this Regulation], if those channels of communication are not available 
for direct exchange between them yet. 

10. The competent  authorities may  continue to  provide information  in  other ways than 
semi-automatically  in  accordance  with  Article  22a(3)  until  [the  first  day  of  the  month 
following the period of two years after the adoption of the implementing act referred to 
in Article 22b of this Regulation], if the technical requirements are not in place yet.”; 

(11) 

the following Annex III is added: 

“Annex III: 

(a) 

information to identify the suspect, accused, convicted or acquitted person:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

surname (family name); 

first names (given name, alias); 

date of birth; 

place of birth (town and country); 

nationality or nationalities; 

identification document, 

gender; 

(b) 

information on the terrorist offence: 

– 

– 

– 

legal qualification of the offence under national law; 

applicable form of serious crime from the list referred to in Annex I; 

affiliation with terrorist group; 

EN 

21 

  EN 

– 

– 

type of terrorism, such as jihadist, separatist, left-wing, right-wing; 

brief summary of the case; 

(c) 

information on the national proceedings: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

status of the national proceedings; 

responsible public prosecutor’s office; 

case number; 

date of opening formal judicial proceedings; 

links with other relevant cases; 

(d) 

information  to  identify  the  suspect,  where  available,  for  the  national  competent 
authorities: 

– 

– 

fingerprint  data  that  have  been  collected  in  accordance  with  national  law  during 
criminal proceedings; 

photographs.”. 

Article 2 

Amendments to Decision 2005/671/JHA 

Decision 2005/671/JHA is amended as follows: 

(1) 

(2) 

in Article 1 point (c) is deleted. 

Article 2 is amended as follows:  

(a) 

paragraph 2 is deleted; 

(b)  paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:  

“3. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that at least the 
information  referred  to  in  paragraph  4  concerning  criminal  investigations  for 
terrorist offences which affect or may affect two or more Member States, gathered 
by  the  relevant  authority,  is  transmitted  to  Europol,  in  accordance  with  national 
law  and  with  Regulation  (EU)  2016/794  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council *. 

_____________ 

* Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
May  2016  on  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Cooperation 
(Europol) (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53).”; 

(c) 

paragraph 5 is deleted.  

Article 3 

Entry into force  

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Union. 

EN 

22 

  EN 

This  Regulation  shall be binding in  its entirety  and directly  applicable in the Member States in 
accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President

EN 

23 

  EN 

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

Contents 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............................................... 26 

Title of the proposal/initiative .................................................................................... 26 

Policy area(s) concerned ............................................................................................ 26 

The proposal/initiative relates to: ............................................................................... 26 

Objective(s) ................................................................................................................ 26 

1.4.1.  General objective(s) ................................................................................................... 26 

1.4.2.  Specific objective(s) ................................................................................................... 27 

1.4.3.  Expected result(s) and impact .................................................................................... 28 

1.4.4. 

Indicators of performance .......................................................................................... 28 

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative ............................................................................ 28 

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative .......................................................... 28 

1.5.2.  Added value of Union involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g. 

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting 
from Union intervention which is additional to the value that would have been 
otherwise created by Member States alone. ............................................................... 29 

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past ................................................ 29 

1.5.4.  Compatibility with the Multiannual Financial Framework and possible synergies 

with other appropriate instruments............................................................................. 30 

1.5.5.  Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for 

redeployment .............................................................................................................. 31 

1.6. 

1.7. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 

Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative ........................................... 32 

Management mode(s) planned ................................................................................... 32 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................................. 33 

Monitoring and reporting rules .................................................................................. 33 

Management and control system(s) ........................................................................... 33 

Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), 
the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed ........................................ 33 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them.......................................................................................................... 34 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control 

costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels 
of risk of error (at payment & at closure) .................................................................. 34 

2.3. 

Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities .............................................................. 34 

EN 

24 

  EN 

 
3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............ 35 

Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) 
affected ....................................................................................................................... 35 

3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations ................................... 36 

3.2.1.  Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations.................................... 36 

3.2.2.  Estimated output funded with operational appropriations ......................................... 38 

3.2.3.  Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations ............................... 40 

3.2.4.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework.............................. 46 

3.2.5.  Third-party contributions ........................................................................................... 46 

3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue ..................................................................................... 47 

EN 

25 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

1.1. 

Title of the proposal/initiative 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  amending 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/1727  and  Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA,  as  regards  the 
digital information exchange in terrorism cases  

1.2. 

Policy area(s) concerned  

Policy area: Justice and fundamental rights 

Activity: Investing in people, social cohesion and values   

071007: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) 

1.3. 

The proposal/initiative relates to:  

 a new action  

 a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action43  

 the extension of an existing action  

 a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action  

1.4. 

Objective(s) 

1.4.1.  General objective(s) 

Eurojust  has  been  established  as  an  intergovernemental  body  to  coordinate 
investigations  of  serious  cross-border  crime  in  Europe  and  beyond  by  Council 
Decision  2002/187/JHA.  The  Treaty  of  Lisbon  has  abolished  the  pillar  structure  of 
the  European  Union  and  aligned  the  are  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  with  the 
acquis communautaire. With Regulation (EU) 2017/1727 a new legal framework for 
a new European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) has been 
established, as required under Article 85 TFEU. 

Combating terrorism has been in Eurojust’s mandate since its set-up in 2002. One of 
the  key  elements  of  Eurojust’s  work  in  this  field  has  been  the  creation  of  the 
European  Judicial  Counter-Terrorism  Register  (CTR)  in  September  2019.  Legal 
basis  for  the  CTR  is  Council  Decision  2005/671/JHA.  As  the  Eurojust  Regulation 
was  conceived  and  agreed  before  the  establishment  of  the  CTR,  the  CTR  and  its 
functions  were  not  foreseen  in  the  Eurojust  Regulation.  In  addition,  the  technically 
outdated  Eurojust  Case  Management  System  (CMS)  is  not  able  to  integrate  and 
support a proactive tool such as the CTR. 

In response to this pressing operational needs the Commission Work Programme for 
2020  announced  a  legislative  initiative  on  digital  information  exchange  on  cross-
border terrorism cases as part of the digital judicial cooperatin package.  

The general objective is to enable Eurojust to fulfil its stronger, more pro-active role 
in  supporting  the  Member  States  in  their  investigations,  especially  in  cases  of 
terrorism,  in  accordance  with  Eurojust’s  mission  to  support  and  strengthen 

43 

As referred to in Article 58(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

26 

  EN 

 
                                                 
coordination  and  cooperation  between  national  investigating  and  prosecuting 
authorities in relation to serious crime. 

1.4.2. 

Specific objective(s) 

The specific objectives derive from the general objective as outlined above: 

Specific objective No. 1: 

To  enable  Eurojust  to  identify  links  more  efficiently  and  to  proactively  provide 
feedback to the Member States.  

Specifiv objective No. 2: 

To  render  the  data  exchange  between  Member  States,  Eurojust  and  3rd  countries 
more efficient and secure. 

EN 

27 

  EN 

 
 
1.4.3.  Expected result(s) and impact 

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted. 

The initiative is expected to legally and technically integrate the CTR in the CMS at 
Eurojust  in  order  to  enable  Eurojust  to  identify  links  between  parallel  cross-border 
proceedings in terrorism cases and other cases of serious crime and to give feedback 
to the Member States. 

1.4.4. 

Indicators of performance 

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The amount of information sent by each Member State for the CTR in relation 
to overall volume and quality of information sent by Member States; 

Number of links established in counter-terrorism cases and serious crime cases; 

Number of feedback send from Eurojust to the Member States; 

Number of operative cases supported with the involvement of third states;  

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative 

The roll-out of the implementation of the legislative initiative requires technical and 
procedural  measures  at  EU and national  level,  which should start  when the revised 
legislation enters into force.  

The main requirements following entry into force of the proposal are as follows: 

– 

– 

Eurojust to implement a new modern Eurojust CMS, integrating the CTR and 
ensuring  ability  to  connect  to  secure  communication  channels  and  process 
structured data.  

Eurojust and Member States to ensure the availablity of secure communication 
channels. 

–  Member States to ensure availabilty of necessary infrastructure to upload data 

semi-automatically and structured.  

Based on the findings of the Digital Criminal Justice study and due to the urgency of 
the  renewal  of  a  new  CMS,  Eurojust  took  already  first  preliminary  steps  for  the 
renewal. It mandated a market analysis study, inquiring in depth the most appropriate 
solution.  

At the end of 2021, Eurojust was attributed EUR 9,5 million unspent funds from the 
European  Public  Prosecutors  Office  (EPPO),  which  will  be  used  to  prepare  the 
development  of  the  CMS  further.  Eurojust  will  mandate  consultancy  services  to 
support  the  analysis,  design  and  development  phase.  For  these  services,  Eurojust 
anticipates  expenditures  of  EUR  2,3  million.  For  the  following  purchase  of 
infrastructur  and  off-the-shelve  software  and  installation  services,  EUR  5,2  million 
are  anticipated.  Finally,  Eurojust  has  estimated  to  spend  EUR  2  million  on 
consultancy services to provide programme and project management, administrative 
changes and governance. 

EN 

28 

  EN 

 
1.5.2.  Added  value  of  Union  involvement  (it  may  result  from  different  factors,  e.g. 
coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting 
from  Union  intervention  which  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  been 
otherwise created by Member States alone. 

Activities  of  criminals  are  currently  more  complex,  diverse  and  international  than 
ever before.  Large scale terrorist  and criminal  networks pose a significant  threat  to 
the internal security of the EU and its citizens. Criminal activities have become more 
and more poly-criminal and cross-border of nature. The national judicial authorities 
cannot  longer  work  in  isolation  but  need  to  cooperate  with  each  other  and  with 
Eurojust. 

For  the  prosecution  of  terrorism,  efficient  exchange  of  information  between 
competent  authorities  and  Union  agencies,  is  crucial.  With  the  new  rise  of  foreign 
terrorist fighters, the importance of sharing information between Member States and 
with Eurojust has only become more evident. 

The  current  disconnect  between  Eurojust’s  casework  and  the  information  received 
through the CTR prevents Eurojust from providing timely and proactive feedback to 
national  authorities  in  cross-border  terrorism  cases,  missing  potential  connections 
and  the  identification  of  duplicate  investigations  and  prosecutions  that  should  be 
connected.  Such  disconnect  may  also  hamper  Eurojust’s  efforts  to  prevent 
jurisdiction conflicts and ne bis in idem cases 

The initiative is expected to enable Eurojust to identify and follow up links between 
cases of terrorism more proactively and give timely feedback to the Member States. 
These  tasks  and  services  can  be  only  performed  at  an  EU  level  due  to  their 
transnational nature. Together with the Member State and its international partners, 
Eurojust will thereby make Europe a safer place for all its citizens.  

The  proposal  builds  on  the  need  to  address  continuously-evolving  transnational 
security  challenges  beyond  the  national  level.  Practice  has  shown  that  for  effective 
criminal justice, quick and secure data exchange is crucial. Without the adequate IT 
infrastructure  neither  secure,  structure  exchange  of  data,  nor  proper  cross-checking 
of  data  is  possible.  Therefore,  the  structured  identification  of  links  between  cross-
border  cases  is  also  not  possible  without  secure  communication  channels  and  a 
modern Case Management System. This proposal also builds on the lessons learned 
and  progress  achieved  since  the  entry  into  application  of  the  2019  Eurojust 
Regulation.  This  affects  mostly  the  increasing  important  role  that  Eurojust  has  as 
interloctor between Member States’ and third countries in judicial cooperation.  

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

The proposal  builds on the need to  coordinate the judicial response to  continously-
evolving transnational crime byond the national level alone.  

Europe  faces  a  security  landscape  in  flux,  with  evolving  and  increasingly  complex 
security threats. Criminals exploit the advantages that the digital transformation, new 
technologies, globalisation and mobility bring about, including the inter-connectivity 
and blurring of the boundaries between the physical and digital world. The COVID-
19 crisis only added to this, as criminals quickly seized the opportunities to exploit 
the crisis by adapting their modes of operation or developing new criminal activities. 

EN 

29 

  EN 

The pandemic showed the overall importance of digitalisation of judicial cooperation 
for  the  functioning  of  the  judiciary.  In  addition,  the  judicial  cooperation  with  third 
countries in criminal investigations for terrorist offences and other international core 

crimes  became  more  relevant,  especially  with  regard  to  the  crimes  committed  by 
Daesh.  

The  evolving  criminal  activities  call  for  effective  EU  level  support  to  the  work  of 
national  law  judicial  authorities.  Member  States’  law  judicial  authorities  have 
increasingly  made  use  of  the  support  and  expertise  that  Eurojust  offers  to  counter 
serious  crime  and  terrorism.  This  proposal  also  builds  on  the  lessons  learned  and 
progress  achieved  since  the  entry  into  application  of  the  2018  Eurojust  Regulation 
and  the  establishment  of  the  CTR.  The  role  third  countries  would  play  was  not 
foreseeable when the co-legislators negotiated the current Eurojust Regulation. 

1.5.4.  Compatibility  with  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  and  possible  synergies 

with other appropriate instruments 

The  reinforcement  of  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  is  a  crucial  part  of 
creating an area of freedom, security and justice.  

The improving the digital exchange of data on terrorism cases and the modernisation 
of  Eurojust’s  CMS  is  in  line  with  the  EU  Security  Union  Strategy44,  the  Counter-
Terrorism Agenda for the EU,45 the Communication on the Digitalisation of Justice46 
and the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime.47 

The  Commission  Communication  on  the  EU  Security  Union  Strategy,  published  in 
July 2020, underlined the connection between internal and external security and the 
importance of cooperation in order to protect citizen’s rights effectively. The recent 
Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU confirmed that terrorist crimes continue to be 
a major challenge for the law enforcement and prosecution authorities of the Member 
States, requiring further efforts to strengthen collaboration between them, supported 
by  Europol  and  Eurojust.  In  the  Communication  on  the  EU  Strategy  to  tackle 
Orgnaised Crime, the Commission expressed its support modernising Eurojust’s case 
management  system  to  help  Eurojust  provide  feedback  to  national  authorities  and 
develop judicial links between ongoing investigations.  

The  Commission  Communication  on  Digitalisation  of  Justice  refers  to  the  present 
proposal  as  part  of  the  overall  toolbox  of  opportunities  for  further  digitalisation  of 
justice.  This  proposal  is  included  in  the  Commission’s  Work  Programme  for  2021. 
The proposal also relates to the current Commission proposal for a Regulation on  a 
computerised  system  for  the  communication  in  cross-border  civil  and  criminal 
proceedings  (e-CODEX)  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1726,  currently 
negotiated between the co-legislators.  

44 
45 
46 

47 

Commission Communication on the EU Security Union Strategy, COM(2020) 605 final. 
Commission Communication on a Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU, COM(2020) 795 final 
Commission  Communication  on  the  Digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  European  Union  -  A  toolbox  of 
opportunities, COM(2020) 710 final, 2.12.2020. 
Commission  Communication  on  the  EU  Strategy  to  tackle  Organised  Crime  2021-2025,  COM(2021) 
170 final. 

EN 

30 

  EN 

                                                 
1.5.5.  Assessment  of  the  different  available  financing  options,  including  scope  for 

redeployment 

Since the Eurojust Regulation entered into force, the trend has been towards a growth 
of  the  agency’s  data  flows  and  of  the  demand  on  its  services.  The  past  budgets, 
however,  have  never  included  financial  resources  to  revamp  the  outdated  Eurojust 
CMS.  

The  proposal  will  introduce  new  tasks  in  Eurojust  Regulation  and  will  also  clarify 
other  tasks,  aiming  at  making  Eurojust  fit  for  the  digital  age.  To  implement  the 
digitalisation of judicial cooperation will not be possible to implement without a new 
CMS, backed by financial and human reinforcements.  

At the end of 2021, Eurojust was attributed EUR 9,5 million unspent funds from the 
European  Public  Prosecutors  Office  (EPPO),  to  prepare  the  development  and 
implementation of the new CMS. The rest of the expenditure will be financed from 
the margin under the heading 2b of the MFF.  

EN 

31 

  EN 

 
1.6. 

Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative 

 limited duration  

–    in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY  

–    Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY  

 unlimited duration 

–  Implementation with a start-up period from YYYY to YYYY, 

–  followed by full-scale operation. 

1.7.  Management mode(s) planned48  

 Direct management by the Commission through 

–    executive agencies  

 Shared management with the Member States  

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to: 

 international organisations and their agencies (to be specified); 

the EIB and the European Investment Fund; 

 bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71; 

 public law bodies; 

  bodies  governed  by  private  law  with  a  public  service  mission  to  the  extent  that 
they provide adequate financial guarantees; 

 bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with the 
implementation  of  a  public-private  partnership  and  that  provide  adequate  financial 
guarantees; 

  persons  entrusted  with  the  implementation  of  specific  actions  in  the  CFSP 
pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act. 

Comments  

The  figures  on  financial  and  human  resources  combine  the  foreseen  total  amount  for  the 
implementation of the CTR, the new CMS and other requirements steming from the Digital 
Criminal Justice planned for the period between 2024 and 2027, minus the EUR 9,5 million 
already allocated to Eurojust in the second half of 2021. It includes additional financial needs 
for  technical  implementation  (including  operative  and  maintenance  costs)  as  well  as  staff 
requirements. The costs for the CMS include the CTR because the CTR is to be integral part 
of the CMS. This technical integration of the CTR is one of the objectives of the initiative. In 
addition,  the  new  CMS  is  supposed  to  include  e.g.  an  integration  layer,  which  ensures 
interoperability as required in the Digital Criminal Justice study. 

48 

Details of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the 
BudgWeb site: 
https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/EN/man/budgmanag/Pages/budgmanag.aspx  

EN 

32 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules  

Specify frequency and conditions. 

Monitoring  and  evaluating  the  implementation  of  the  digitalisation  of  the  data 
exchange of the agency will be important to ensure the effectiveness of Eurojust. The 
monitoring  and  reporting  of  the  poposal  will  follow  the  principles  outlined  in  the 
Eurojust  Regulation49  and  in  line  with  the  Common  Approach  on  decentralised 
agencies50. 

In addition to the horizontal governance rules applicable to agencies, Eurojust must 
notably send each year to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council 
a  Single  Programming  Document  (SPD)  containing  multi-annual  and  annual  work 
programmes and resources programming. The SPD sets out the objectives, expected 
results and performance indicators to monitor the achievement of the objectives and 
the results.  

Eurojust also reports on its work in an elaborate annual report. Eurojust transmits this 
annual  report  to  the  Parliament,  to  the  Council  and  to  national  parliaments.  In 
addition,  Eurojust  informs  the  parliament  and  the  national  parliaments  on  working 
arrangements concluded with third parties.  

An external independent evaluation of the implementation of the Regulation and the 
activities  of  Eurojust  shall  be  commissioned  by  the  Commission  by  13  December 
2024  and  every  five  years  thereafter  in  order  to  evaluate  the  implementation  and 
impact of the regulatiomn and the effectiveness and efficiency of Eurojust, Article 69 
(1) of the Eurojust Regulation. 

2.2.  Management and control system(s)  

2.2.1. 

Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), 
the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed 

Considering that the proposal impacts the annual EU contribution to Eurojust, the EU 
budget will be implemented via indirect management.  

Pursuant to the principle of sound financial management, the budget of Eurojust shall 
be implemented in compliance with effective and efficient internal control.  

Regarding ex-post controls, Eurojust, as a decentralised agency, is notably subject to:  

– 

– 

internal audit by the Internal Audit Service of the Commission; 

annual  reports  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors,  giving  a  statement  of 
assurance  as  to  the  reliability  of  the  annual  accounts  and  the  legality  and 
regularity of the underlying transactions; 

– 

annual discharge granted by the European Parliament; 

49 
50 

Regulation (EU) 2017/1727.  
https://europa.eu/european-
union/sites/default/files/docs/body/joint_statement_and_common_approach_2012_en.pdf.  

EN 

33 

  EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

possible  investigations  conducted  by  OLAF  to  ensure,  in  particular,  that  the 
resources allocated to agencies are put to proper use; 

finally,  the  European  Ombudsman  provides  a  further  layer  of  control  and 
accountability at Eurojust. 

2.2.2. 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them 

No  specific  risks  in  management  and  control  systems  were  identified  at  this  stage. 
Eurojust  is  subject  to  administrative  controls  including  budgetary  control,  internal 
audit, annual reports by the European Court of Auditors and the annual discharge for 
the execution of the EU budget as set out above. 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control 
costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels 
of risk of error (at payment & at closure)  

The  ratio  of  “control  costs/payment  of  the  related  funds  managed”  is  reported  on  by  the 
Commission. The 2020 AAR of DG JUST reports 0.74% for this ratio in relation to Indirect 
Management Entrusted Entities and Decentralised Agencies, including Eurojust. 

The  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  confirmed  the  legality  and  regularity  of  Eurojust’s 
annual accounts for 2019, which implies an error rate below 2%. There are no indications that 
the  error  rate  will  worsen  in  the  coming  years.  For  2020  it  is  also  provisionally  confirmed 
based on the verification of the Eurojust annual accounts by an independent external auditor. 
ECA’s  opinion  on  the  reliability  of  the  accounts  is  subject  to  confirmation  by  ECA  of  the 
reliability of the independent auditor’s results and it is still pending. 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures, e.g. from the Anti-Fraud Strategy. 

The  measures  related  to  combating  fraud,  corruption  and  other  illegal  activities  are 
outlined,  inter  alia,  in  Article  75  Eurojust  Regulation.  Eurojust  shall  notably 
participate in fraud prevention activities of the European Anti-fraud Office and inform 
the  Commission  without  delay  on  cases  of  presumed  fraud  and  other  financial 
irregularities 

EN 

34 

  EN 

 
 
3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget 
line(s) affected  

  Existing budget lines  

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines. 

Budget line 

Type of  
expenditure 

Contribution  

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Number  

071007 

2b 

Diff./Non-
diff.51 

from 
EFTA 
countries
52 

from 
candidate 
countries53 

from third 
countries 

within 
the 
meanin
g of 
Article 
21(2)(b
) of the 
Financi
al 
Regulat
ion  

Diff./Non-
diff. 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

  New budget lines requested  

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines. 

Budget line 

Type of 
expenditure 

Contribution  

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Number  

Diff./non-
diff. 

from 
EFTA 
countries 

from 
candidate 
countries 

from third 
countries 

[XX.YY.YY.YY] 

YES/NO  YES/NO  YES/NO 

within the 
meaning 
of Article 
21(2)(b) 
of the 
Financial 
Regulatio
n  

YES/N
O 

51 
52 
53 

Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 
EFTA: European Free Trade Association.  
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans. 

EN 

35 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations  

3.2.1. 

Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below: 

Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

Number  Heading 7-Investing in People, Social Cohesion and Values 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

[Body]: Eurojust 

Title 1 Staff expenditures 

Title  2:  Infrastructure  and  operating 
expenditures 

Commitments 
Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

Title 3: Operational expenditures54 

Commitments 

TOTAL appropriations 
for Eurojust 

Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

(1) 

(2) 

(1a) 

(2a) 

(3a) 

(3b) 

=1+1a 
+3a 

=2+2a 

+3b 

Year 
2024 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

TOTAL 

1,125 
1,125 

2,683 
2,683 

3,376 
3,376 

3,981 
3,981 

1,033 

0,578 

8,128 

4,780 

7,027 

6,458 

5,390 

9,771 

2,158 

10,811 

10,403 

9,371 

1,693 

7,463 

9,834 

13,752 

11,165 
11,165 

21,577 

21,577 

32,743 

32,743 

54 

Technical costs under Title 3 include operating and maintenance costs as all costs related to the CMS are currently committed under Title 3. 

EN 

36 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

7 

‘Administrative expenditure’ 

DG: JUST 

 Human Resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  

TOTAL DG JUST 

Appropriations  

Year 
2024 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

0,238 

0,238 

0 

0 

0,238 

0 

0,238 

0 

0,952 

0 

TOTAL appropriations 
under HEADING 7 
of the multiannual financial framework  

(Total  commitments  = 
Total payments) 

0,238 

0,238 

0,238 

0,238 

0,952 

Year 
202455 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 7 
of the multiannual financial framework  

Commitments 

2,396 

11,049 

10,641 

Payments 

1,931 

7,701 

10,072 

9,609 

13,99 

33,695 

33,695 

55 

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. Please replace "N" by the expected first year of implementation (for instance: 2021). The same for 
the following years. 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.2.  Estimated output funded with operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below: 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
2024 

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

TOTAL 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

Total 
No 

Total 
cost 

1,835 

9,190 

8,843 

7,965 

27,832 

Indicate 
objectives and 
outputs  

 

Type56 

Avera
ge 
cost 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 157 
To enable Eurojust to identify links 
between parallel cross-border 
investigations and prosecutions 
regarding terrorist offences more 
efficiently and to provide feedback 
on these links to the Member States 

- Output 

Identifying links 
between cross 
border cases 
established by 
Eurojust 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2  
To render the data exchange 
between Member States, Eurojust 
and 3rd countries more efficient and 
secure. 

56 
57 

Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 
As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)’ 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- Output 

- Output 

Personal data 
securely 
received from 
Member States 
to Eurojust 

Personal data 
transferred in a 
structured, semi 
automated way 

- Output 

Information 
exchanged with 
3rd countries 

0,108 

0,541 

0,520 

0,469 

1,637 

0,108 

0,541 

0,520 

0,469 

1,637 

0,108 

0,541 

0,520 

0,469 

1,637 

Subtotal for specific objective No 2 

0,324 

1,622 

1,560 

1,406 

4,911 

TOTAL COST 

2,158 

10,811 

10,403 

9,371 

32,743 

EN 

39 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3. 

Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations  

3.2.3.1.  Summary  

–    The  proposal/initiative  does  not  require  the  use  of  appropriations  of  an 

administrative nature  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative 

nature, as explained below:58 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
2024  

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

TOTAL 

0,952 

2,337 

2,943 

3,289 

0,173 

0,346 

0,433 

0,0,692 

9,521 

1,644 

Temporary agents (AD 
Grades) 

Temporary 
(AST grades) 

agents 

Contract staff 

Seconded National 
Experts 

TOTAL 

1,125 

2,683 

3,376 

3,981 

11,165 

Staff requirements59 (FTE): 

Year 
2024  

Year 
2025 

Year 
2026 

Year 
2027 

TOTAL 

11 

16 

18 

20 

2 

2 

3 

5 

Temporary agents (AD 
Grades) 

Temporary 
(AST grades) 

agents 

Contract staff 

Seconded National 
Experts 

TOTAL 

13 

18 

21 

25 

20 

5 

25 

58 

59 

The costs estimates for staff are cumulative and have been made on the basis of the average costs for 
temporary and contract staff, indexed to the correction coefficient applicable for the Netherlands as of 
07/2020 (113,9%). 
Cumulative. The number indicated under each year is the number of old staff from the previous year(s) 
and newly recruited staff. The total number of new staff (25) will be reached in 2027. 

EN 

40 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recruitement dates are planned at mid-year. For each new year, 50% of the newly recruited 
staff costs have been estimated. No assumptions have been made for a potential increase of 
the salary indexation or the correction coefficient applicable to the Netherlands.  

Details of staff increase:  

Specific 
objective 
Specific 
objective 
no1:  To 
enable 
Eurojust to 
identify links 
more 
efficiently 
and to 
provide 
proactive 
feedback to 
the Member 
States. 

Additional staff 

2*  Case  Data  Analysts  are  needed  to  ensure  CMS  compliance  with  the 
Eurojust  Regulation  and  agreements  (with  Member  states,  3rd  Countries, 
Agencies)  and  the  EU  existing  legal  framework  on  information  exchange, 
digitalisation and interoperability 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +1; 2025: +1 
2* Data Management Officers are needed to participate in the evaluation and 
selection of the CMS, to assist in the business transformation, requirements 
analysis and design phases, implementation and acceptance of the new CMS 
and  the  integration  with  other  systems  (e.g.  Hit/No-Hit),  projects  (e.g.  e-
CODEX, e-EDES) and the Interoperability Framework projects (SIS II, etc.) 
and to assure the correct policies and procedures are put in place to govern 
data created with the implementation of new systems 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +1; 2025: +1 

2*Case Support Assistants are needed to manage the significant increase of 
data  volume  expected,  to  perform  operational  data  processing  in  the  CMS 
(including translations), to manage overview of the life cycle of open cases 
and to produce ad hoc and regular reports (monthly, annual) and statistics 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2026: +1; 2027: +1 
1*Data  Management  Officer  is  needed  to  perform  data  quality  review 
processes aiming to  ensure Eurojust data is  high quality, current,  complete, 
unambiguously understood, consistent and available when required 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2026: +1 

1*Case Data Analyst is needed due to the expected increase of notifications 
sent to Eurojust to identify links among ongoing judicial proceedings based 
on  the  analysis  of  the  information  Eurojust  receives  from  Europol,  OLAF, 
the EPPO and national authorities and to analyse large set of data for judicial 
coordination purposes 

EN 

41 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2026: +1 
1*Case Data Analyst is needed to draft (joint) requests addressed to Member 
States  based  on  the  analysis  of  information  exchanged  covering  all  the 
operational functions listed in article 4(2) of the Eurojust, to detect recurring 
issues in the use of judicial cooperation tools, to draft suggestions to extend 
cases  to  other  Member  States  and  opinions  on  recurrent  refusals  or 
difficulties in judicial cooperation and on best place to prosecute 
Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2027: +1 

1*Programme  Manager  and  1*Project  Manager  are  needed  to  establish  the 
governance  and  management  of  the  programme  (including  communication 
and risk management, monitoring and progress  reporting to  the programme 
board and stakeholders) from set up until closure and to support preventive 
and evaluative  maintenance of the new system 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +2 
1*IT Architect is needed to define the high level architecture, design and set 
up the infrastructure for the implementation of the new CMS and to maintain 
the technical architecture, connections and systems supporting the new CMS 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +1  
1*Business  Analyst  is  needed  to  perform  the  requirements  analysis, 
including  proof  of  concept  per  technical  solution  and  to  support  preventive 
and evaluative  maintenance of the new system  

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +1 
1*ICT  Security  Officer  is  needed  to  ensure  secure  design,  implementation 
and operation of the CMS and secure exchange of data with external systems 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +1 
1*Data  Protection  Specialist  is  needed  to  ensure  data  protection  by  design 
and that data protection rules are applied to operational data 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +1 
3*ICT  Operations  Officers  are  needed  for  application  and  IT  policy 
management,  for  the  business  transformation  of  Eurojust  processes,  to 

EN 

42 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific 
objective 
no2: To 
render the 
data 
exchange 
between 
Member 
States, 
Eurojust and 
3rd countries 
more 
efficient and 
secure. 

prepare manuals (including delivering training to users) and to administer the 
Eurojust  networks,  databases,  systems,  virtualisation  platforms  and 
applications 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +1; 2025: +2 
2*Administrative  staff  are  needed  to  prepare  job  descriptions,  carry  out 
selections  and  manage  the  on-boarding,  training  needs  and  entitlements  of 
new staff and to manage the tender procedures and ensure budget execution, 
control and reporting on funds received 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +2 
 1*Case  Support  Assistant  is  needed  to  manage  the  significant  increase  of 
data  volume  expected,  to  perform  operational  data  processing  in  the  CMS 
(including translations), to manage overview of the life cycle of open cases 
and to produce ad hoc and regular reports (monthly, annual) and statistics 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2027: +1; 
1*Data  Management  Officers  is  needed  to  perform  data  quality  review 
processes aiming to  ensure Eurojust data is  high quality, current,  complete, 
unambiguously understood, consistent and available when required 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2027: +1 
1*Legal  Officer  and  1*Policy  Officer  are  needed  to  participate  in  the 
negotiation by the Commission of international agreements and to negotiate 
and  draft  strategic  and/or  implementing  working  arrangements  with  3rd 
countries 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2024: +2; 
1*Legal  Officer  is  needed  to  negotiate,  draft,  evaluate  and  review  of 
cooperation instruments/cooperation agreements/MoU with partner agencies 
and bodies 

Estimated  FTEs  needed  –  additional  FTE  to  be  hired  per  year  (not-
cumulative):  
2025: +1 

EN 

43 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3.2.  Estimated requirements of human resources  

–   The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.  

–   The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below: 

Estimate to be expressed in full amounts (or at most to one decimal place) 

Year 2024  Year 2025  Year 2026 

Year 2027 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and 

temporary staff) 

20 01 02 01 and 20 01 02 02 
(Headquarters and Commission’s 
Representation Offices) 

20 01 02 03 (Delegations) 

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) 

 External staff (in Full Time Equivalent 

unit: FTE)60 

20 02 01 (AC, END, INT from the 
‘global envelope’) 

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END, INT and 
JPD in the Delegations) 

Budget 
line(s) 
(specify) 
61 

- at 
Headquarters
62 

- in 
Delegations  

01 01 01 02 (AC, END, INT – 
Indirect research) 

10 01 05 02 (AC, END, INT – 
Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

TOTAL 

2 

2 

2 

2 

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to 
management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary 

60 

61 
62 

AC = Contract Staff; AL = Local Staff; END = Seconded National Expert; INT = agency staff; JPD = 
Junior Professionals in Delegations.  
Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines). 
Mainly  for  the  EU  Cohesion  Policy  Funds,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development 
(EAFRD) and the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF).   

EN 

44 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual 
allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

Description of tasks to be carried out: 

Officials and temporary staff 

External staff 

Represent  the  Commission  in  the  ExecutiveBoard  of  the  Agency.  Draw  up 
commission opinion on the annual  work programme and monitor its implementation. 
Monitor implementation of the budget. Assist the Agency in developing its activities in 
line with EU policies, including by participating in experts meetings. 

One SNE will support the officials and temporary staff in the above tasks and assist the 
Agency in developing its activities in line with EU policies, including by participating 
in experts meetings 

Description  of  the  calculation  of  cost  for  FTE  units  should  be  included  in  the  Annex  V, 
section 3.  

EN 

45 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
3.2.4.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework  

The proposal/initiative: 

–   can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of the 

Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). 

Explain what reprogramming is required, specifying the budget lines concerned and the corresponding 
amounts. Please provide an excel table in the case of major reprogramming. 

–  requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF 

and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the MFF Regulation. 

Explain  what  is  required,  specifying  the  headings  and  budget  lines  concerned,  the  corresponding 
amounts, and the instruments proposed to be used. 

The  proposal  requires  use  of  the  unallocated  margin  under  the  heading  2b  of  the 
MFF as follow: on BL 07.1007 – Eurojust – in 2024 – EUR 2,158 million, in 2025 
EUR 10,811 million, in 2026 – EUR 10,403 million and in 2027 EUR 9,371 million. 

3.2.5.  Third-party contributions  

The proposal/initiative: 

–  The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third parties.  

–  The proposal/initiative provides for the co-financing estimated below: 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary 
to show the duration of the 
impact (see point 1.6) 

Total 

Specify  the  co-financing 
body  

TOTAL 
co-financed  

appropriations 

EN 

46 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue  

–    The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue. 

–    The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact: 

–   

–   

on own resources  

on other revenue  

– 

         please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines  

Appropriation
s available for 
the current 
financial year 

Budget revenue line: 

Article …………. 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Impact of the proposal/initiative63 

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary to show 
the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) 

For miscellaneous ‘assigned’ revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected. 

[…] 

Specify the method for calculating the impact on revenue. 

[…] 

63 

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net 
amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20 % for collection costs. 

EN 

47 

  EN