Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-border law enforcement cooperation : final report. Annex V, Synopsis report of the consultation activities.
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
Subjects: EU Member State, EU action, EU police cooperation, application of the law, cross-border cooperation, data protection, exchange of information, fight against crime, illicit trade, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, multilateral agreement, organised crime, public safety, report, terrorism, trafficking in human beings

Study to support the preparation 
of an impact assessment on EU 
policy initiatives facilitating 
cross-border law enforcement 
cooperation  

Final Report 

Annex V 

Synopsis Report of the Consultation Activities 

October 2021 

This report has been prepared by EY and RAND Europe for the European Commission, Directorate-
General for Migration and Home Affairs. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This study was carried out on behalf of the European Commission by 

Main authors of the study 

EY 

RAND Europe 

•  Katarina Bartz 

•  Michaela Bruckmayer 

•  Nicoletta Colombo 

•  Emma Disley 

• 

Ilia Gaglio 

•  Alana Gyszas 

•  Florian Linz 

European Commission 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to support the 
preparation of an impact 
assessment on EU policy 
initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement 
cooperation  

Final Report 

Annex V 

Synopsis Report of the Consultation Activities 

Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your 
questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, 
and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained 
therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

PDF 
PRINT 

ISBN 978-92-76-43508-2   
ISBN 978-92-76-43509-9   

doi: 10.2837/42778 
doi: 10.2837/911519 

DR-01-21-422-EN-N 
DR-01-21-422-EN-C 

© European Union, 2021 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Table of Contents 

1 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 

1.1  Objectives and types of stakeholders consulted ................................................ 1 
1.2  COnsultation methods and tools ..................................................................... 1 

2 

RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES .............................................. 4 

2.1  Online survey with LEAs, judicial authorities and data protection authorities ........ 4 
Interviews ................................................................................................... 5 
2.2 
Focus groups .............................................................................................. 19 
2.3 
Technical workshops .................................................................................... 23 
2.4 

Table of Tables 

Table 1 - Categories of stakeholders involved ............................................................................... 1 
Table 2 – Criteria for the selection of case study countries ........................................................... 14 
Table 3 –Number of participants per case study country .............................................................. 15 
Table 4 – Number of participants per focus group ....................................................................... 20 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

1  INTRODUCTION 

This document presents the objectives and main types of stakeholders consulted as part of the 
Study  to  support  the  preparation  of  an  impact  assessment  on  EU  policy  initiatives  facilitating 
cross-border law enforcement cooperation, as well as the main consultation methods and tools 
used.  

A glossary and list of abbreviations is provided at the start of the main body of the final report 
for the study. 

1.1  Objectives and types of stakeholders consulted  

As part of this study, various consultations, both with key stakeholders and the public at large, 
were carried out. The aim of these consultations was to provide the European Commission with 
factual evidence concerning possible problems and additional measures in the area of intra-EU 
law enforcement cooperation.  A wide range of stakeholders operating both at the EU and the 
national  levels  was  consulted,  using  a  combination  of  different  consultation  tools.  The 
stakeholders can be organised into a number of general categories described in the Table below. 

Table 1 - Categories of stakeholders involved 

Stakeholder category 

EU Agencies, Bodies and 
Networks 

National authorities 

Mixed EU level and national 
level stakeholders 

Other 

European Commission 
EU bodies with relevant expertise 
LEWP members 
National LEAs 
National judicial authorities 
National data protection authorities 
EMPACT Support Managers 
EMPACT Drivers  
Members of the Academia and think tanks 
Members of the general public 
Source: Author’s own elaboration 

1.2  COnsultation methods and tools 

The following consultation methods were used as part of the study: 

•  Online survey with LEAs, data protection authorities and judicial authorities; 
• 

Interviews with: 

o  EU bodies; 
o  EMPACT actors; 
o  Member State representatives (case studies); 
o  Academia; 

•  Focus groups with representatives of Member States that cooperate within the framework 

of bi-/tri-/ multilateral agreements; and 

•  Technical  workshops  with  representatives  of  Member  States  and  Schengen  Associated 

Countries, as well as EU-level stakeholders. 

In  addition  to  these  methods,  in  line  with  its  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  European 
Commission  implemented  an  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  of  all  relevant  stakeholders 
interested,  including  members  of  the  general  public.  The  consultation  was  hosted  on  the 
European Commission’s website (ec.europa.eu) in all EU official languages. The OPC ran for eight 
weeks, from 19 April 2021 to 14 June 2021.  In total, 20 replies were received.  The results of 
the OPC have informed the study. Its results have been analysed in detail and provided to the 
European Commission in Annex VI and are, thus, not presented hereafter. 

1 

 
 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Online survey with LEAs, judicial authorities and data protection authorities 

An online survey was deployed using the contractor’s survey tool. The survey targeted national 
LEAs,  national  judicial  authorities  (specifically,  Eurojust  national  desks  and  European  Judicial 
Network contact points) and national data protection authorities. The consultation ran for eight 
weeks, from 5 March 2021 to 30 April 2021. In total, 239 responses were received: 216 from 
national LEAs’ representatives, 13 from national judicial authorities and  10 from national data 
protection authorities. 

The results of the online survey are presented in section 2.1. 

Interviews with EU bodies, EMPACT actors, Member States, and Academia 

In total 48 individual interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. These included: 

•  20 interviews with EU bodies;  
•  10  interviews  with  EMPACT  drivers  and  two  group  interviews  with  EMPACT  support 

managers (in total 21 interviewees); and 

•  4  interviews  with  academics  and  members  of  think  tanks  (see  Annex  I  for  further 

reference). 

•  12 group interviews with Member State representatives for the case studies. 

The  interviewees  were  selected  in  agreement  with  the  Commission.  The  interviews  were 
conducted  online,  for  most  part  via  Teams.  The  interviews  were  used  to  collect  data  on  the 
problems, possible solutions and the impacts of these.  

The interviews with EU bodies, academia and think tanks were focused on collecting expert 
views  on  gaps  and  deficiencies  affecting  the  current  EU  framework  for  law  enforcement 
cooperation, as well as qualitative and quantitative information concerning possible impacts of 
additional measures. The interviews with members of academia served to provide relevant inputs 
based on their knowledge and past research on cross-border police cooperation. 

The involvement of EMPACT support mangers and operational action plan (OAP) drivers 
helped  gaining  a  better  understanding  on  the  state  play  in  the  use,  implementation  and 
effectiveness of cross-border law enforcement cooperation measures/practices and investigative 
tools with regard to each specific priority crime area of the EU Policy Cycle, in order to understand 
whether there are measures/tools that are particularly used and effective in certain crime areas, 
but not in others. In other words, this data collection exercise allowed the Study Team to change 
the angle of the analysis from the legal basis (EU/national/international) to the area of utilisation 
of specific measures/tools (i.e. priority crimes).  

In addition, interviews with national LEAs were performed at the end of phase 1 of the study 
in  order  to  follow  up  on  specific  findings  and  issues  identified  during  the  assessment  of  the 
problems. 

To  account  for  possible  national  differences  in  the  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  policy 
options,  the  Study  Team  undertook  case  study  interviews  with  national  stakeholders  from  a 
selected number of Member States to better comprehend the heterogeneity of the institutional 
and regulatory law enforcement frameworks in the Member States and SAC, and related impacts 
of the options. Within this framework, an additional 12 interviews with 26 participants from 
five countries (Austria, France, Slovenia, Sweden  and Switzerland) were conducted to 
provide Member State-level deep dives concerning the expected impacts of the policy options in 
their country.  

The results of the interviews are presented in section 2.2. 

Focus groups with representatives of Member States and SAC 

In order to collect first-hand information on the use, practical implementation and effectiveness 
of four relevant bi/tri/multilateral agreements (i.e. the Benelux agreement; DE-CZ agreement; 
CH-FR agreement; and Nordic countries agreement), the Study Team organised four separate 
focus groups convening the parties involved in each agreement. The focus groups allowed the 

2 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Study Team to develop an in-depth understanding of the content and scope of said agreements, 
as well as of their practical implications, including both strengths and  weaknesses. The Study 
Team  collected  the  necessary  information  to  understand  whether  the  agreements  are 
outdated/underused  or,  on  the  opposite,  whether  they  include  measures  on  cooperation 
mechanisms or investigative tools that are innovative or have proved to be particularly effective 
in  combating  cross-border  crime.  The  focus  groups  involved  a  total  of  48  participants.  Each 
group included participants from each Member State and SAC who has signed the agreement 
and  included  stakeholders  from  different  agencies  (for  example,  police,  customs,  and  other 
specialist departments). 

The results of the focus groups are presented in section 2.3. 

Technical workshops with representatives of Member States and SAC 

Two full-days technical workshops were organised and animated by the Study Team. Each 
workshop involved close to 200 participants. The objectives of each workshop were as follows: 
•  The first technical workshop took place on 24 March 2021 in Phase 1 of the study and 
involved  representatives from DG HOME, DG JUST, the Council, Europol and Cepol, as 
well as representatives from all EU Member States and SAC. The participants were asked 
to provide their feedback on the nature and scale of identified problems, the EU dimension 
of  the  problems  and  the  effective  need  for  further  EU  action,  thus  allowing  the  Study 
Team to fine-tune the problem definition and the analysis of the evolution of the problem 
in the absence of any additional EU action. The first technical workshop also allowed the 
Study  Team  to  cross-check  information  collected  through  other  sources  and  collect 
missing  data  and  information  to  develop  a  more  complete  evidence-base.  Finally,  this 
meeting was also used by the Study Team to discuss and explore possible policy options 
addressing identified problems to be taken into consideration. 

•  The second technical workshop took place on 24 May 2021 in phase 2 of the study. 
This  workshop  involved  the  same  types  of  stakeholders  as  the  first  workshop,  namely 
representatives from DG HOME, DG JUST and the Council, as well as representatives from 
all  EU  Member  States  and  SAC.  The  participants  involved  in  this  workshop  had  the 
possibility to both give their feedback on the preliminary content of the policy options to 
address the current problems affecting cross-border law enforcement cooperation and to 
provide  additional  information  on  the  likely  impacts  of  the  options,  thus  allowing  the 
Study Team to fine-tune the definition of the options and the assessment of their impacts. 

Each workshop included: 

•  Plenary  sessions  for  the  discussion  of  the  study  interim  findings  and  preliminary 

results; and 

•  Break-out  sessions  in  smaller  groups  according  to  the  three  main  areas  of  the  core 
problems,  namely  (i)  information  exchange;  (ii)  joint  operations  for  public  order  and 
safety; and (iii) operational cooperation to fight serious and organised crime. 

The results of the technical workshops are presented in section 2.4. 

In  addition  to  both  technical  workshops,  the  study  team  gave  a  presentation  at  the  law 
enforcement working party (LEWP) meeting on 16 March 2021. The presentation focused on the 
study’s objectives and methodology. This synopsis report does not include a detailed summary 
of this meeting since the study team was only present for its own presentation. 

3 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

2  RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

This chapter presents the main findings derived from the various consultation methods. 

2.1  Online survey with LEAs, judicial authorities and data protection 

authorities 

As indicated above in section 1, in total 239 responses were received to the online survey: 216 
responses  were  received  from  national  LEAs’  representatives,  13  from  national  judicial 
authorities and 10 from national data protection authorities. 

Measures/practices existing at EU and national levels including investigative tools 

As concerns the existence of bi-/tri-/multilateral agreements concerning law enforcement 
cooperation,  almost  all  of  the  survey  respondents  among  LEAs  (98%,  n=621)  confirmed  that 
their country is part of at least one agreement with one or more countries. Moreover, numerous 
LEAs  also  confirmed  that  the  agreements  in  many  cases  go  beyond  the  provisions  in  EU 
instruments (n=19). A lower number of respondents indicated that they address specific legal 
challenges countries may face when cooperating on specific topics or using specific tools (n=5). 
A very limited number of respondents stated that the agreements they have entered into with 
other  countries  were  an  affirmation  of  cooperation,  which  either  already  existed  prior  to 
Schengen or is based on cultural values (n=3). Furthermore, according to a limited number of 
respondents, the perceived added value of the agreements included the clear outlining of rules 
and competencies (n=5),  and fast information  exchange and additional competencies beyond 
what is outlined in EU documents (n=3).  Three respondents  explained in this regard  that the 
agreements in their country had more added value when they were created, compared to now, 
but that there is still value in them now. One respondent described the agreements as a daily 
manual for their tasks. 

The  online  survey  also  included  questions  on  data  protection  in  relation  to  bi-/tri-
/multilateral agreements, which were targeted at data protection authorities. Two thirds of 
the respondents  from this stakeholder group  (66% (n=6)  confirmed that they had previously 
been asked to advise or comment on a bi-/tri- or multilateral agreement their country is part of. 
More than two thirds (70%; n=7) stated that there are no differences in breaches between the 
implementation  of  multilateral  agreements  and  the  implementation  of  other  cross-border 
cooperation matters. 

Finally,  according  to  the  judicial  authorities  that  responded  to  the  survey,  9%  (n=1)  of  the 
respondents stated that judicial authorities always need to be involved in the authorisation 
of  investigative  tools,  while  27%  (n=3)  confirmed  an  occasional  involvement.  However, 
equally  many  respondents  (37%;  n=4)  stated  that  no  involvement  of  judicial  authorities  is 
required,  while  27%  (n=3)  indicated  that  they  do  not  know.  Regarding  the  supervision  of 
investigative tools, 43% (n=3) stated that judges or prosecutors are involved in supervising 
the measures, while an even higher number (57%; n=4) stated that they are not. 

The need to harmonise investigative tools and for EU action 

According to the survey respondents, at the national level surveillance is the most frequently 
used  tool  to  investigate  serious  and  organised  crime  (SOC),  and  the  different  categories  of 
surveillance,  controlled  delivery  and  undercover  operations  are  on  average  perceived  by  LEA 
stakeholders as the most effective investigative tools.  

At cross-border level, interception of communication and cross-border surveillance (physical) 
are the most frequently used tools and, together with controlled deliveries, are those with the 
highest degree of perceived effectiveness. 

1 The number of responses (“N”) denotes the number of valid answers for a specific question, not the number of replies 
to the survey overall. Therefore, 62 responses can e.g. refer to a share of 98% of respondents whereas, at the same 
time, 131 responses can also correspond to a share of 82%. The “N”, thus, also always needs to be understood in view 
of the specific questions and number of answers given to a particular question – not the overall number of respondents 
to the survey. 

4 

 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Considering barriers to the use of investigative tools during cross-border investigations, the most 
commonly identified challenge was stated to be the differences in national legislation regarding 
the offences for which a tool may be authorised, while trust between countries did not appear 
to be a significant barrier. 

The  need  for  EU  intervention  in  the  field  of  cross-border  exchange  of  and  access  to 
information is widely supported by the LEAs answering the survey, with 82% (n=131) of the 
respondents  reporting  a  need  for  EU  action  from  a  ‘moderate’  to  a  ‘very  high’  extent.  The 
percentage of those supporting EU intervention to  strengthen operational cooperation for 
public order and safety was somewhat lower, with 52% (n=44), reporting a need to intervene 
from  a  ‘moderate’  to  a  ‘high’  extent.  Similarly,  54%  (n=83)  of  LEAs  answering  the  survey 
reported a strong need for EU intervention to improve operational cooperation to fight SOC. 

The problem definition 

Considering  the  issue  of  access  to  and  exchange  of  necessary  information  among  law 
enforcement authorities, LEAs answering the survey stated that information exchanges related 
to operations against SOC are frequent, and those related to public safety are frequent as well, 
although slightly less so. However, the majority of LEAs responding to the survey (82%, n=98) 
reported  to  have  experienced  some  problems  when  sharing  information  with  other  countries, 
such as time delays to receive the information request (30% of the responses, n=82). As pointed 
out by the majority of the respondents (62%, n=98), such issues are mainly due to the fact that 
the foundational EU legal framework is not consolidated in all areas, it is spread across several 
legislative  instruments  and  allows  for  significant  flexibility  to  the  Member  States  and  SAC 
regarding the implementation of relevant EU provisions. 

Regarding the issues related to cross-border operational cooperation to fight SOC, the vast 
majority of LEAs responding to the survey (95%, n=94) reported to have faced some problematic 
cases. Out of these, 28 LEAs faced problems in more than 20% of the cases. When comparing 
the  share  of  problematic  cases  of  cooperation  to  fight  SOC  reported  by  LEAs  with  the  ones 
reported in relation to the cooperation for public order purposes, the implementation of cross-
border cooperation to fight SOC appears to be more problematic. 

2.2  Interviews 

2.2.1  EU bodies 

Interviews conducted in Phase 1 

In the first phase, interviews with EU bodies were conducted to explore the functioning of current 
law enforcement cooperation practices, including current problems and the need for EU action 
(CEPOL, EDPS, EJN, EJTN, EMCDDA, EPPO, EUCPN, Eurojust, Europol, FRA, OLAF). 

Measures/practices existing at the EU and national levels including investigative tools 

The  representatives  from  EU  bodies  specified  that  the  current  EU  framework  for  operational 
cooperation  seems  to  be  overall  effective  in  supporting  cross-border  law  enforcement 
cooperation. At the same time, they underlined the presence of some weaknesses that need to 
be addressed. 

Concerning  information  exchange,  the  stakeholders  consulted  indicated  that  the  quality  of 
information and processes through which information is exchanged should be enhanced with the 
aim  to  avoid  possible  overlaps  as  concerns  the  use  of  different  channels.  On  the  one  hand, 
duplication  of  the  use  of  the  channel  of  communication  could  undermine  the  quality  and 
knowledge of information exchanged. On the other hand, the wide array of instruments that can 
be used to exchange information may create more difficulties than solutions for practitioners. 
Moreover, the functioning of one of the main information sharing tools – the Secure Information 
Exchange Network Application (SIENA), which is managed by Europol - is affected by the limited 
access  that  LEAs  have  (especially  customs)  across  the  EU.  To  conclude,  the  stakeholders 
highlighted  the  scarce  interoperability  of  databases,  which  hampers  the  proper  exchange  of 
information. 

The awareness of the importance of data protection has been vastly improved in recent years, 
notably  thanks  to  the  implementation  of  the  Law  Enforcement  Directive  (Directive  (EU) 

5 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

2016/680). However, due to the fact that the LED needs to be transposed at the national level, 
it may lead to divergent approaches to data protection. In a similar fashion, it was observed that 
there  is  not  a  common  regulation  on  data  retention  and  that  data  protection  legislation  on 
artificial intelligence, management of big data and facial recognition is still missing. 

When it comes to the bi-/tri-/multilateral agreements, it was underlined that they play a great 
role  in  cross-border  law  enforcement  cooperation.  However,  they  also  create  difficulties  and 
disparities  in  the  instruments  they  regulate  as  oftentimes  there  are  overlaps  between  the 
provisions of the agreements and those stemming from the EU legal framework. 

The need to harmonise investigative tools and for EU action 

Representatives from EU bodies reported that all investigative tools covered by the study were 
deemed relevant for LEAs’ cross-border cooperation. One point was made on the fact that the 
relevant tools tend to be regulated mostly at the national level, leading to a high fragmentation 
in  terms  of  their  applicability  across  EU.  This  is  the  case  for  cross-border  surveillance  and 
interception  of  communication  for  which,  despite  the  existence  of  an  EU  framework,  national 
legislation  still  regulates  the  access  to  relevant  data.  The  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
investigative  operations  may  be  hampered  not  only  by  asymmetries  on  the  use  and 
implementation of tools, which prevent and limit cross-border cooperation, but also by language 
barriers, which are still present and strong in some countries. 

Representatives of EU bodies argued that it would be beneficial to have one single framework 
for  law  enforcement  cooperation.  However,  it  was  pointed  out  that  a  “one  fits  all  solutions” 
cannot be  considered due to national differences and that an  effort  should be made to try to 
expand the current framework to areas that Member States and SAC can benefit from. Moreover, 
it would be useful to have EU-wide guidelines setting out common approaches and standards 
concerning the harmonisation of tools and practices. This would avoid the risk of creating binding 
provisions,  which  are  not  really  necessary  and  which  could  create  a  more  confused  and 
fragmented legal panorama. 

Policy objectives 

Representatives  from  EU  bodies  expressed  the  need  to  develop  instruments  setting  common 
standards and ensuring: 

•  A convergence of LEAs towards a common understanding of the use of tools;  
•  A common and shared assessment of threats affecting the EU;  
•  A common practice to gather information from all EU Member States in a similar way and 

have comparable data available;  

•  The  promotion  and  the  use  of  the  same  tools  in  similar  situations  to  ensure  a  higher 

degree of efficiency. 

On a more operational level, guidelines for information sharing were seen as flexible instruments 
as they allow Member States to maintain “room for manoeuvre” and adapt them to their specific 
needs. Non-binding documents were seen as a compromise reached at the political level, as it 
is hardly possible to commit 27 Member States to only one binding still more effective document. 

Stakeholders  agreed  that  the  interoperability  of  databases  is  an  important  aspect  to  be 
addressed with the aim to ease  cross-border cooperation and to overcome the  current issues 
related to the presence of divergent approaches.  

According to EU bodies’ representatives, EU should also implement measures and mechanisms 
to  compel  Member  States  to  share  information  with  each  other  and  with  the  relevant  EU 
agencies. The final outcome should be the implementation of an automated process to access 
databases, in order to have a centralised system that every Member State and third countries 
can benefit from. 

Regarding  data  protection,  it  was  seen  as  important  that  the  legislative  framework  of  data 
protection  is  up  to  date  to  integrate  new  forms  of  cooperation  resulting  from  technological 
innovation  (artificial  intelligence  or  big  data).  Legislative  interventions  concerning  data 
protection should address: 

6 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

•  Limited quality of data quality stored in databases; 
•  Difficulties  comparing  data  retrieved  from  different  databases  as  they  are  stored 

differently; 

•  Children’s fundamental rights as part of cross border investigations; 
•  Sharing  of  sensible  data  with  third  countries,  which  may  not  apply  EU  standards 

concerning data protection. 

With  reference  to  the  investigative  tools,  EU  bodies’  representatives  expressed  the  need  to 
harmonise investigative techniques used in cooperation, by setting common standards for  law 
enforcement  cooperation.  The  current  use  of  tools  was  stated  to  result  in  several  operational 
obstacles, especially during the implementation process. The harmonisation of the investigation 
techniques, especially with regard to the modus operandi was seen as beneficial. 

A major issue reported by the representatives from EU bodies is the fact that when it comes to 
public order and other  safety related issues is  the political feasibility of the measures. In this 
regard, it was stated to be important to propose solutions, which are ready to be accepted by 
the Member States and SAC. In so doing, EU rules  should always  take into  consideration the 
principles of proportionality and the least intrusive measure. 

The problem definition 

Developments in the Public Order and SOC landscape 

According to representatives from EU bodies, technology is  one  of the major drivers  enabling 
the development of new forms of crime. The increasing role of digitisation in society has been 
posing  some  difficulties  to  law  enforcement  cooperation,  creating  asymmetries  between  the 
ability of crime groups to exploit emerging technologies and the oftentimes comparatively slow 
response  of  LEAs,  which  are  often  not  fully  capable  of  exploiting  the  new  technological 
advancements to counter organised crime. 

While illegal migration, trafficking of human beings, dark markets, drug trafficking and money 
laundering issues, terrorism and radicalisation still remain the thorniest issues for LEAs, COVID-
19 has represented a game changer in the crime panorama. Indeed, the pandemic acted as an 
accelerator of some criminal trends, providing a “breeding ground” for criminal activities, and 
organised crime groups were able to quickly shift their activities online through the use of digital 
devices. For instance, social media apps allow criminals to: 

•  Reach a wider audience;  
•  Get in contact with each other more easily;  
•  Find partners in the countries of origins and destinations;  
•  Reduce the costs of their criminal activities; 
•  Avoid the risks to be detected. 

As result, the changing threat landscape is creating vulnerabilities in the security system of the 
EU. 

Law enforcement cooperation 

Law  enforcement cooperation is limited by the  existing asymmetries and differences  between 
the  Member  States  regarding  national  approaches  to  the  same  area  of  crime.  Indeed,  the 
presence  of  numerous  actors  and  multifaceted  and  horizontal  approaches  to  crimes  make 
cooperation harder. Moreover, law enforcement cooperation is a sensitive political and cultural 
matter for Member States. Indeed, countries may have a different perception of which criminal 
activities should be prioritised, further delaying the design of common solutions. However, the 
increasing volumes in the number of persons and goods moving across EU and the  rest of the 
world not only pose new challenges to national LEAs that are called to cooperate more frequently, 
but also have an impact on the workload of LEAs, which are supposed to provide checks on and 
control these flows. As a consequence, the response of policymakers need to be developed to 
tackle all these different aspects. 

EU bodies’ representatives highlighted the German-Czech bilateral agreement to be particularly 
effective and contain examples of good practice, reflecting the special relationship between the 
two countries (Germany and Czechia). Indeed, the agreement allows a smoother implementation 
of cross-border surveillance compared to previous agreements and it covers also public order 

7 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

and  security.  Another  agreement  that  was  highlighted  as  good  practice  is  the  agreement 
between Sweden and Norway. The two countries share a long border and the development of 
practical ways to manage cross-border surveillance activities was a necessity, which needed to 
be adjusted to new circumstances (e.g. the building of a bridge required to modify the previous 
agreement to allow for efficient cross-border surveillance). 

Interviews conducted in Phase 2 

As  second  round  of  interviews  with  EU  bodies  were  conducted  in  phase  2  of  the  assignment 
(CEPOL, EDPS, EJN, EPPO, EUCPN/ENAA, Europol, FRA, OLAF).  

The interviews served to gather additional detailed information concerning: 

•  Possible EU measures to address current problems affecting cross-border law 

enforcement cooperation; and  

•  The likely impacts of these possible EU measures. 

During the interviews, specific topics of (a) the access to and exchange of information, and/or 
(b) operational cooperation for public order and safety, and/or (c) operational cooperation for 
SOC and terrorism were discussed in more detail. 

The assessment of the impacts of the policy options 

Regarding  information  exchange  via  SIENA  and  other  communication  channels, 
interviewees from one EU body did not expect immediate positive direct impacts if English was 
established as the default language for the use of SIENA. The stakeholders instead saw positive 
impacts if bilateral communication takes place in  (common) national languages, as this would 
allow for a quicker management of information requests. Instead of establishing English as the 
default  language  for  the  use  of  SIENA,  the  representatives  considered  the  introduction  of  a 
translation tool as more suitable for information exchange concerning cross-border cases. One 
interviewee  from  another  EU  body  also  highlighted  that  obstacles  stemming  from  language 
barriers  hamper  efficient  information  exchange  and  stressed  the  need  to  address  language 
barriers in the near future. In yet another interview, a critical opinion towards the establishment 
of SIENA as the preferred/default channel for information exchange concerning intra-EU cross-
border cases was voiced. Since it was cumbersome for one interviewee to get access to SIENA 
in his/her operational work due to security restrictions of his/her organisation, s/he could not 
agree on positive impacts stemming from this potential EU measure. 

Concerning  the  definitions  of  requirements  for  data,  one  interviewee  highlighted  the 
importance  of  data  accuracy  in  relation  to  data,  which  is  subject  to  exchange.  Errors  in 
databases, which appear to be common, undermine the added value of databases and can have 
a negative impact on fundamental rights, for instance if an innocent individual becomes subject 
to proceedings.  

As concerns training activities, interviewees from one EU body did not see immediate positive 
impacts if shorter intervals between the EU-STNA were introduced (e.g. a reduction from four 
to two years) since a longer cycle allows for better strategic planning. Similarly, this stakeholder 
advised against the introduction of mandatory training on EU law enforcement cooperation for 
officers in specific roles relevant to cross-border law enforcement and at specific levels, as this 
stakeholder did not have positive experiences with the implementation of mandatory training a 
year ago. Free and voluntary learning methods were considered as the more feasible option in 
this regard. 

Interviewees from other EU bodies highlighted the importance of awareness raising campaigns 
within the EU law enforcement community. Positive impacts from awareness raising campaigns 
were  expected,  as  many  officials  were  stated  to  not  be  aware  of  the  existing  measures  and 
policies in place to facilitate information exchange. 

8 

 
 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

2.2.2  EMPACT actors 

Objectives and overview of the interviews with EMPACT drivers and support managers  

Interviews with EMPACT stakeholders were conducted as part of the study, including:  

•  Ten individual interviews with EMPACT drivers; and  

•  Two Group interviews with EMPACT support managers (4 and 7 interviewees 

respectively). 

A total of 21 stakeholders were interviewed in the individual and group interviews. 

Key results from the interviews 

Interviewees were asked about a series of aspects concerning cross-border cooperation, their 
efficiency and challenges encountered.  

Structures for cooperation 

Interviewees  in  the  individual  and  group  interviews  were  asked  about  the  use  of  multiple 
structures in place in cross-border cooperation. The following structures were provided as 
prompts to the interviewees: Single Point of Contact (SPOCs); Police and Custom Cooperation 
Centres  (PCCCs),  National  SIRENE  Bureaux;  Europol  Liaison  Officials;  Swedish  Framework 
Decision (SFD); Manual on cross border cooperation National Factsheets (13920/20). 

There was no overall consensus on which tool is the preferred tool. Different structures seem 
to be used in different crime areas and countries. For example, the PCCCs between two countries 
were stated to work well, but this cannot always be replicated in other countries due to resource 
constraints. The Swedish Framework Decision was highlighted as particularly useful for financial 
crimes.  Each  structure  in  place  was  created  with  a  specific  purpose  within  cross  border 
communication.  As  most  of  these  structures  were  created  decades  ago,  interviewees  voiced 
concerns  over  these  structures  not  reflecting  the  current  needs  of  investigation  teams,  in 
particular with regard to cybercrime, where quicker and more direct cooperation with experts in 
the field is needed.  

The  potential  of  centralisation  of  these  structures  into  one  structure  was  discussed. 
Interviewees  agreed  that  the  existing  structures  should  be  revised  instead  of  creating  a  new 
one. Centralisation into one system was raised as potentially problematic due to the number of 
requests which would be going through the system per day. 

Interviewees  acknowledged  that  cross-border  cooperation  has  increased  over  the  past 
decades. Cooperation has improved significantly already, however, the changing crime landscape 
is posing new challenges. Cross-border cooperation needs effective tools to address new types 
of crimes, such as cybercrimes, and new types of criminal networks, online and dispersed over 
several  countries.  There  is  a  need  to  reflect  this  in  national  legislation  and  the  agreements 
guiding  cross-border  cooperation.  Currently  the  required  paperwork  and  often  the  national 
legislation is slowing investigations down. 

Information exchange platforms 

Interviewees in the individual and group interviews were asked about the use of information 
exchange  platforms  in  place  in  cross-border  cooperation.  The  following  structures  were 
provided as prompts to the interviewees: SIENA; the Schengen Information System (SIS); the 
Europol  Information  System  (EIS);  Interpol  exchange  channels;  and  the  Visa  Information 
System (VIS). 

Interviewees  found  that  there  are  currently  too  many  different  platforms  and  databases  for 
exchanging information. As with the cooperation structures, interviewees highlighted that these 
platforms/  databases  were  each  created  with  a  specific  purpose  in  mind.  However,  different 
countries have different preferences concerning which platform to use. Because of the amount 
of  platforms  countries  can  choose  from,  information  is  often  scattered  and  it  is  unclear  what 
information is available. Interviewees suggested reviewing and reforming existing platforms and 
potentially link them, rather than creating a completely new tool.  

9 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Trust  between  the  countries  involved  in  cooperation  was  mentioned  as  the  most  important 
aspect for the efficient sharing of information. Interviewees explained that most countries are 
reluctant to upload sensitive information to share with everyone else and with Europol. 

Multilateral Agreements 

Interviewees in the individual and group interviews were asked about their awareness of bi-
/tri-/multilateral agreements and how they are being used in practice. Few interviewees had 
experience working under bi-/tri-/multilateral agreements. It was nevertheless highlighted that 
for  those  colleagues  working  in  the  border  regions,  these  agreements  are  useful  to  ensure 
smooth cooperation. It was highlighted that sometimes the bureaucracy and national legislation 
related  to  the  agreements  can  slow  down  cooperation  in  border  areas  and  make  it  more 
complicated for the officials working with them.  

Investigative tools for cross-border cooperation 

Interviewees in the individual and group interviews were asked about the use of investigative 
tools in cross-border cooperation, including surveillance, interception of communications, covert 
investigations, controlled deliveries, using informants, and undertaking hot pursuit. 

The different investigative tools work reasonably well according to the interviewees. The tools 
used  differ  in  each  crime  area  and  also  in  terms  of  which  tools  are  allowed  by  national 
governments. Countries tend to allow the use of different investigative tools on their territory, 
and  these  can  only  be  used  within  specific  rules  laid  out  by  each  country.  The  different  rules 
across  the  countries  and  the  difference  in  priorities  of  the  tools  in  the  countries  sometimes 
hamper cooperation. For example, one country does not consider controlled deliveries a priority. 
They  have  the  provisions  for  controlled  deliveries  in  their  law,  but  do  not  allocate  sufficient 
resources to do controlled deliveries. 

Public Order and Safety 

Interviewees in the individual and group interviews were asked about cross-border cooperation 
in relation to public order and safety. The following structures were provided as prompts to 
the  interviewees:  Investigative  tools  in  relation  to  football  matches,  tourism,  major  cultural 
events, natural disasters, health crises, safeguarding public order and preventing offences. 

Not many of the interviewees had experience of cooperation for the purpose of events relating 
to  public  order  and  safety.  One  interviewee  who  gained  some  experience  in  this  area  in  a 
previous role remarked that cooperation for large events or disasters is needed, but there are 
usually no specific channels, which are used for the cooperation in those cases. 

For  football  matches,  the  National  Football  Information  Point  network  was  mentioned  as  an 
essential part of the coordination and cooperation in this area. 

Future Needs 

Interviewees in the individual and group interviews were asked about the future needs in cross-
border cooperation. Most interviewees acknowledged the progress that has been made in cross-
border  law  enforcement  cooperation  between  different  countries.  However,  interviewees 
requested reforms to reflect the changing crime landscape. Especially in the area of digital crimes 
legal reforms are required to account for the fast pace of the crimes. 

The harmonisation and revision of structures, tools and legislation was also mentioned as a point 
for EU wide action. 

Good practices  

Interviewees also provided valuable information on  ‘good practices’ in different areas of cross-
border law enforcement cooperation. Suggestions included:  

•  SPOCs: For countries where the single points of contacts are well established, the SPOCs 

were seen as an added value to establish a course of action for the cooperation. 

•  Trust  /  Personal  Networks:  Interviewees  mentioned  trust  as  the  key  element  for 
cross-border  cooperation.  It  was  explained  that  informal  networks  with  officials  from 
other countries with whom cooperation has existed for years are often the first point of 
contact when it is necessary to establish cooperation with another country. The network 

10 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

of  the  Europol  liaison  officials  was  also  mentioned  as  a  good  practice  for  cooperation, 
where trust is built and which facilitates direct cooperation between the countries. 

•  Trust / Crime-area specific network: The Joint Cybercrime Action Taskforce (JCAT) 
was  mentioned  as  a  good  practice.  This  taskforce  connects  cybercrime  experts  from 
across the EU to facilitate cooperation. Through continuous cooperation trust can be built, 
which results in better cooperation. One interviewee highlighted that shared knowledge 
of the language and terminology in this crime area has resulted in smoother cooperation. 
‘SMOKE’  was  also  mentioned  as  an  effective  network  of  cooperation  between  police, 
customs and the tobacco industry in combatting counterfeit cigarette production. 

•  Accessibility  of  communication  tools:  In  some  countries  the  accessibility  to,  for 
example,  SIENA  computers,  was  highlighted  as  well  developed.  Two  countries  were 
mentioned  as  good  examples,  since  SIENA  computers  are  accessible  across  these 
countries and available to the officials who may need it.  

•  Bilateral agreements: 

o  Cooperation  in  border  regions:  Bilateral  agreements  are  seen  as  the  most 
effective way of cooperation in the border regions and day to day cooperation. 

o  Rights for foreign officials: Foreign officials having the same or similar rights 
to local law enforcement officials is seen as a good practice in direct cooperation 
through bilateral agreements. 

Challenges  

Interviewees  were  generally  in  favour  of  international  cooperation  and  the  structures  and 
investigative tools which can be used. However, the interviewees highlighted a set of challenges 
they face when employing the available structures and investigative tools in practice.  

•  Lack of harmonisation and persistent structural differences between countries were 

considered the biggest challenges for law enforcement cooperation.  

o  Legislative  perspective:  Several  interviewees  spoke  about  the  challenges  of 
using  tools  in  cross-border  cooperation  due  to  the  different  legislation  in  the 
Member States. The rights of officials in countries across the EU and the Schengen 
area differ significantly  and it is not always clear to foreign officials what rights 
they have. In addition, the authorisation of requests and tools is often regulated 
by national laws, creating substantial difficulties in cross-border cooperation. 

o  Operational  perspective:  Across  different  countries  the  LEAs  responsible  for 
investigations may vary distinctively. These differences may relate to the structure 
of  the  police  and  customs  bodies  within  the  countries  or  to  the  rights  each  law 
enforcement agencies has within their own country. This can hinder cooperation, 
if it is difficult for foreign officials to assess who the cooperation should be with. 
This  challenge  was  highlighted  in  relation  to  structures,  tools  and  information 
exchange.  

•  Challenges related to the exchange of information:  

o  Existing information: It is often unclear what kind of information exists in other 
countries  on  persons  or  goods  relevant  to  an  investigation.  Interviewees 
highlighted that using a two-step approach, i.e. making a  request first to see if 
information is available and then to request the information itself often prolongs 
the  investigation  process.  Member  States  often  seem  hesitant  to  share 
information in joint databases, often leading to a lack of data in those databases. 

o  Access  to  communication  tools:  The  access  to  communication  tools  differs 
significantly across Members. For example, in some countries SIENA computers 
are only available to officials in their capital city. 

11 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

o  Usage of information sharing tools: While recognising that existing structures 
for information exchange serve different purposes, the large number of different 
tools in use can pose challenges. There is variation  with regard to which tool is 
used for what purpose across the Member States. Sometimes this is due to the 
accessibility or procedures within the Member States. This lack of harmonisation 
leads  to  information  for  one  case  being  partially  shared  through  one  tool  and 
partially through another, sometimes with different recipients on these tools. This 
results in officials not having all necessary information. It was also mentioned that 
occasionally  requests  are  submitted  through  different  channels  resulting  in 
duplication of request. 

•  Lack of human resources for cooperation: The lack of personnel allocated to handle 
requests  for  cross-border  cooperation  was  highlighted  as  a  challenge  for  cooperation. 
Interviewees highlighted that those handling the requests are  often overwhelmed with 
the  number  of  requests  received,  which  can  delay  responses  to  requests.  It  was  also 
highlighted that often those persons that are responsible for handling the request may 
not be familiar with the specific crime area of the request, which can lead to issues in 
addressing it. 

•  Lack  of  awareness  of  structures,  tools  and  platforms:  Several  interviewees 
mentioned  that  a  lack  of  knowledge  about  the  different  cooperation  tools  available  to 
officials on the national level can hinder cooperation on the EU level. 

In summary  

Overall, the interviews provided a wide range of views regarding cross-border law enforcement 
cooperation in terms of what is working well and what is not working so well, seen through the 
eyes  of  these  stakeholders.  The  interviews  shed  light  on  the  cross-border  law  enforcement 
cooperation and the practical realities the stakeholders are faced with every day. While some 
structures seem to be working well and facilitate cooperation, officials are often using informal 
structures to ensure smooth cooperation, as trust in officials from other countries is mentioned 
as  the  base  of  cooperation  and  the  amount  of  channels  and  structures  available  are  often 
confusing to use and need to be revised. There was a consensus that the overall cooperation 
tools were introduced for a good reason, but a revision needs to be done, especially within the 
changing crime landscape the EU and the Schengen Area are facing.  

2.2.3  Member State representatives (case studies)  

In agreement with the EU Commission, Austria, France, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland were 
selected as case  study  countries.  The five case study countries provide a mix in terms  of the 
following criteria: 

•  Population size: The selected case studies encompass countries with rather small 

(Slovenia) and large population sizes (France). In total, 23% of the population in the 
countries analysed in the study are covered.2 

•  GDP per capita: The selection of case studies includes countries with rather low 

(Slovenia) and high (Austria, Sweden, Switzerland) GDP per capita. 

•  Number of reported challenges in the countries: The selected case studies 

encompass  four countries (France, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland) that have high 
numbers of issues in existing sources that refer to all three core problems identified. 

•  Number of bi/tri/multilateral agreements identified in the study: The selected 
countries are either countries with medium number of agreements (France, Slovenia, 
Sweden) and high number of agreements (Austria, Switzerland). 

•  Scope of the bi/tri/multilateral agreements analysed in the study: The case 

study selection includes countries with agreements that cover most categories, i.e. SOC 
and public safety, information sharing as well as investigative tools and joint operations 

2 Eurostat (2021) Population on 1 January. Available at: link. 

12 

 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

(Austria, France, Slovenia), and countries that e.g. cover mostly SOC and not all 
investigative tools and joint operations (Switzerland, Sweden). 

•  Coverage of investigative tools: Among the selected case studies, all but one 

country (Switzerland) cover all types of investigative tools. 

•  Categories of competent authorities for the SFD: The selection of case studies 
covers countries with rather low numbers (Slovenia) and rather high numbers of 
categories (Sweden) of competent authorities for the SFD. 

13 

 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-border law enforcement cooperation 

Table 2 – Criteria for the selection of case study countries 

Country 

Population 
Size in 
2020 

GDP per 
capita in 
2020 

Number of 
Reported 
Challenges 
in key 
sources 

Number of 
Agreements 
Identified 

Scope of the Bi-/Tri-/Multilateral 
Agreements Analysed 

SOC / Public 
Order and 
Safety 

Information 
Sharing 

Investigative 
Tools and 
Joint 
Operations 

Investigative 
Tools 
Coverage 

Number of 
Categories 
of 
Competent 
Authorities 
for the SFD 

Austria 

8,900,000 

42,110 € 

5 

11-15 

Both 

Yes 

Yes 

All 

France 

67,300,000 

33,690 € 

9 

6-10 

Both 

Yes in all but 
one agreement 

Yes in all but 
one agreement 

All 

Slovenia 

2,100,000 

22,010 € 

10 

6-10 

Sweden 

10,300,000 

45,610 € 

8 

6-10 

Both in all but 
one 
agreement 
Only SOC 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

All 

All 

Switzerland  8,600,000 

75,890 € 

9 

11-15 

Only SOC in 
six 
agreements 

Yes 

Yes in all but 
two 
agreements 

All but use of 
informants3 

Source: Author’s own elaboration, based e.g. on Eurostat and desk research 

3 

3 

2 

4 

3 

3 As part of the research for this study, reference was only made to the use of informants as investigative tool in the available literature - not the use of sources. Therefore, the use 
of sources is not covered by this study. 

14 

 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

A  total  of  26  national  representatives  were  interviewed  in  the  five  case  study  countries  (see 
Table  3)  in  12  individual  case  study  interviews.  Additionally,  two  follow-up  interviews  were 
conducted with representatives from Belgium.  

Table 3 –Number of participants per case study country 

Case study country 

Austria 

France 

Slovenia 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Number of 
interviews 
1 

Number of 
participants 
1 

4 

4 

1 

2 

12 

6 

1 

6 

Source: Author’s own elaboration, based on case study interviews 

The case study interviews were conducted to gather additional detailed information concerning: 

•  Possible EU measures to address current problems affecting cross-border law 

enforcement cooperation; and  

•  The likely impacts of these possible EU measures.  

The interviews were structured around the three topics of: (a) the access to and exchange of 
information,  (b)  operational  cooperation  for  public  order  and  safety,  and  (c)  operational 
cooperation for SOC and terrorism.  

Access to and exchange of information 

The interviewees from the case study countries were either indifferent or favourable towards the 
potential EU policy measures that had been developed to address current challenges in relation 
to access to and exchange of information.  

With regard to the set-up and competencies of the SPOCs and PCCCs, interviewees from 
two case study countries specified that they assume positive impacts from the policy options for 
those  Member  States  that  have  not  already  set  up  their  SPOCs  and  PCCC  in  line  with  the 
presented policy options. However, they expected little impact for their own countries as they 
are  mainly  already  complying  with  the  presented  measures.  For  instance,  the  interviewees 
highlighted  that  they  already  have  SPOCs  operating  24/7  and  that  if  there  is  an  information 
request, requests can be handled in real-time with no delays, particularly in urgent cases. Other 
representatives,  nevertheless,  also  estimated  that  if  the  SPOC  were  to  have  full  access  to 
relevant national case management systems, the time saved would be at least several days, as 
for non-urgent cases signatures by competent authorities are always required. 

As concerns the SPOC/PCCC Case Management Systems (CMS) in the Member States, one 
representative explained that they are already in the planning phase for a CMS in their country, 
which would comply with the presented policy options such as the usage of Universal Message 
Format or that the degrees of urgency should be linked with deadlines. Hence, no major impacts 
were expected from the introduction of these potential EU measures. Interviewees from another 
case study country, however, expected positive impacts from the provision of a list of common 
requirements for functionalities, since the existing CMS are typically based on inhouse solutions 
and,  consequently,  not  necessarily  tailored  to  the  needs  of  cross-border  law  enforcement 
cooperation. 

Interviewees voiced different expectations about the impacts in relation to information exchange 
via SIENA and other communication channels. On the one hand, representatives from two case 
study countries only saw limited added value if English were to be established as the default 
language  for  the  use  of  SIENA  and  found  SIENA  user-friendly  already.  Stakeholders  from 

15 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

another country did, however, expect to see positive impacts in terms of a reduction in working 
time currently spent on translation if English was established as default language for the use of 
SIENA. These stakeholders were of the view that SIENA could be made more user-friendly if a 
translation tool was integrated in SIENA, which would allow SPOCS to allocate human resources 
currently dedicated to help out on translation issues to other urgent tasks. 

The stakeholders from the first two countries were more favourable towards new, simpler, and 
more  user-friendly  forms,  which  could  result  in  a  limited  positive  impact.  Similarly, 
representatives from the third case study country indicated that they would expect clear positive 
impacts if more user-friendly forms were established.  

As concerns the establishment of SIENA as the preferred or default channel for information 
exchange, representatives from one case study country indicated that, although they use SIENA 
already very frequently as their most important information exchange channel, their LEAs would 
greatly benefit from even more Member States and SAC using SIENA as the preferred channel. 

One representative stressed that they in particular expected positive impacts from EU measures 
addressing the use of secure communication means. They currently rely on WhatsApp for fast 
cross-border  communication  and  for  sharing  initiative  information  without  personal  data,  but 
would  prefer  a  police  communication  mobile  app  or  platform  linked  to  SIENA  with  encrypted 
messaging.  Hence,  the  development  of  common  standards  for  secure  communication 
means and the development of a “central LEA app” would help to solve the security problems 
with respect to WhatsApp and reduce delays when waiting for replies and reactions from officials 
from the other side of the border. 

Interviewees  expressed  different  expected  impacts  concerning  training  activities.  If  English 
were  defined  as  an  appropriate  criterion  for  specific  roles  within  certain  LEAs  working  on 
primarily on international cases, one interviewee saw little added value as those officials working 
in cross-border cases in his/her country who need to speak English have a sufficient command 
of  English.  On  the  other  hand,  representatives  from  another  case  study  expected  positive 
impacts.  They  illustrated  their  opinion  with  the  example  of  the  usage  of  SIENA:  If  an  official 
needs support to fill in a form in SIENA, then the SPOCs helps with the translation. If appropriate 
English  skills  were  defined  as  an  entry  criterion,  then  the  SPOCs  could  spend  fewer  human 
resources  (or  less  working  time)  to  assist  with  translations.  Concerning  the  introduction  of 
mandatory training on EU law enforcement cooperation for officials in specific roles relevant for 
cross-border  law  enforcement,  one  interviewee  stressed  the  positive  impacts  that  could  stem 
from  a  reduction  in  specific  initial  training,  which  are  set  up  in  advance  before  each  joint 
operations.  If  training  was  more  standardised,  administrative  costs  for  the  performance  of 
trainings and working hours spent by officials on trainings could be reduced. 

Operational cooperation for public order and safety 

The interviewees from the case study countries did not bring up any negative expected impacts 
of potential EU measures with respect to public order and safety.  

As concerns the financial and human resources to expand the use of joint operations, 
the interviewees generally expected positive impacts if appropriate financial instruments were 
established by the EU Commission (e.g. through the International Security Fund), as this would 
reduce joint operation costs for accommodation and expenses (such as gas for cars), which are 
currently  borne  by  the  Member  States  themselves.  Interviewees  from  different  case  study 
countries stressed that joint operations are generally cost-intensive and financial support by the 
EU Commission is welcomed. One example of the estimated costs currently borne by Member 
States was given by interviewees from one case study country: In order to send six officials to 
another Member State in a joint operation, the total travel expenses amounted to 3,900 Euro in 
total, i.e. on average around 650 EUR / person.  

Interviewees  generally  saw  positive  impacts  stemming  from  the  conferral  of  certain 
operational powers to officials of seconding Member States involved in joint operations. If 

16 

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

rules were harmonised and officials more empowered, this would reduce insecurities of officials 
when operating on foreign soil, reduce costs caused by specific training, and facilitate workflows. 

As concerns the remote access to specific police databases for officials on the ground, 
one representative remained indifferent about the impact for his/her country, but could imagine 
positive impacts for other countries. S/He stressed that in his/her country, officials operating in 
joint  operations  do  have  access  to  all  needed  information,  thus  EU  measures  with  respect  to 
remote access to specific police databases for officials on the ground would have little impact in 
this case. 

Representatives  from  one  case  study  country  could  not  see  any  immediate  positive  impacts 
stemming from the sharing of risk analysis and threat assessments. They highlighted that 
the needed information is already shared with neighbouring countries in the planning process of 
joint operations. 

Operational cooperation for SOC and terrorism 

The  representatives  of  the  case  study  countries  expected  largely  favourable  impacts  of  the 
potential EU measures foreseen in the policy options with respect to operational cooperation 
for SOC and terrorism. Representatives from one case study country stressed that for their 
country, the potential EU measures for surveillance are much more important than the ones for 
hot pursuit, as hot pursuit is only carefully used when there is a clear added value. 

As concerns surveillance, representatives expected positive impacts from the extension of the 
current  EU  legal  provisions  to  also  cover  the  use  of  cross-border  surveillance  in  relation  to 
waterways, sea, and air borders. They stressed that the majority of surveillance is done on soil, 
but  still  generally  expected  positive  impacts  if  it  were  expanded  as  it  would  facilitate  work 
processes. The interviewees also expressed that they expect positive impacts if the possibility 
for technical means of surveillance (e.g. GPS trackers, drones) were ensured in a cross-border 
context. If physical surveillance could partly be substituted by technical means of surveillance, 
they would expect a reduction of the operational risk for foreign officials. Furthermore, if more 
technical  means  of  surveillance  were  ensured  and  their  usage  harmonised,  more  human 
resources would be available for other tasks. The majority of interviewees highlighted that they 
would see positive impacts if a common and rather generous maximum time allowed to carry 
out cross-border surveillance activities would be agreed upon, as this would reduce delays when 
waiting  for  replies  for  requests.  Representatives  from  one  case  study  country  expected  that 
ensuring streamlined possibilities to use technical means of surveillance in other countries could 
increase the frequency of cross-border surveillance by up to 30% over the next couple of years. 

As concerns hot pursuit, representatives from one case study stressed that they do not deem 
it feasible to harmonise operational powers, e.g. to arrest or stop and search cars, as it would 
be too sensitive in political and social terms to have officials act on their own on foreign soil. 
However,  representatives  from  another  case  study  country  did  expect  positive  impacts  from 
harmonisation and the establishment of common rules for hot pursuit, as this would reduce the 
uncertainties for officials operating in a foreign country as to what exactly they are allowed to 
do and what not. 

2.2.4  Academia 

Measures/practices existing at EU and national levels including investigative tools 

The four academics interviewed highlighted the important role of the multilateral agreements. 
It  was  mentioned  that  the  agreement  between  the  Nordic  countries  and  the  Nordic  Council 
represents  a  very  good  example  of  cooperation.  This  is  a  consequence  of  the  fact  that  when 
these countries establish new legislation, they do not establish it at a supranational level, but 
they simply try to coordinate this with each other. The discussion does not need to reach the 
Council level and ministers can directly negotiate the new legislation, a model which has resulted 
in having greater similarities across the Nordic countries. 

17 

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

In general, the representatives from Academia confirmed that bi-/tri-/multilateral agreements 
usually go beyond EU rules, notably as it would be very difficult to export the same set of rules 
across  all  27  Member  States  and  SAC.  At  the  EU  level,  especially  when  discussing  a  binding 
measure, often the lowest possible denominator is agreed, since many times a small group of 
Member States opposes a certain measure. 

The need to harmonise investigative tools and for EU action 

Interviewees  among  the  academics  reported  the  need  to  improve  training  of  officials  to 
increase the use of investigative tools used in cross-border investigations, as those provided by 
CEPOL are not considered sufficient. It was suggested that the training should focus on regional 
threats. 

Furthermore,  it  was  highlighted  in  these  interviews  that  there  are  regulatory  asymmetries 
between  Member  States  that  should  be  reduced  and  an  agreement  at  the  European  level 
could be necessary. In particular, it would be important to simplify the tools and mechanisms 
used in cooperation through the development of “strengthened” guidelines and organisational 
incentives. 

The problem definition 

Developments in the Public Order and SOC landscape 

According  to  the  academic  experts  interviewed,  the  current  challenges  related  to  law 
enforcement cooperation do not have a strong link to public order. This is due to the fact 
that most of the mass events requiring public order interventions are foreseeable and therefore 
police can plan in advance. Even when it comes to football matches, in the past LEAs were not 
sufficiently  prepared,  but  nowadays  they  have  increased  their  capacity  in  relation  to  these 
events. 

Overall,  the  interviewees  agreed  that  major  issues  are  related  to  collaboration  to  fight 
SOC. In particular, the experts reported the presence of three main types of organised crime 
groups: 

•  Mafia-like groups: A group that has a significant size and structure, which could be active 

in the economic sphere in infiltrations and in the illegal economy. 

•  Local groups: Small groups linked to the territory where many different groups operate, 

performing different activities and having a flexible organisational structure.  

•  Emerging groups: A mix of ethnic and local groups that has resulted from the migratory 

process that has affected Europe. 

With reference to these groups, the consulted experts reported that in Europe expect that while 
there will be fewer mafia-like groups, emerging ethnic groups will be increasingly important in 
the future. 

Law enforcement cooperation 

The academic experts reported that, overall, the actual practice of law enforcement cooperation 
has not significantly changed in the last ten years and is still strongly based on direct contacts 
and trust between law enforcement officials, rather than on formal cooperation schemes. 

Moreover,  according  to  the  academic  experts  consulted,  law  enforcement  capacities  are 
limited  across  the  Member  States,  especially  in  terms  of  the  available  human  and  financial 
resources.  While  there  is  strong  pressure  to  enhance  law  enforcement  effectiveness,  this 
pressure  has  not  led  to  an  adequate  increase  in  budgets.  For  instance,  surveillance  activities 
require a significant amount of resources in terms of specialised teams and tools. For this reason, 
available resources are planned according to the priorities of the single Member State and, in 
most  of  the  cases,  a  cross-border  request  has  to  compete  with  national  investigations  for 
resources. In this context, national interests are always paramount and tend to dominate over 
foreign investigations. 

18 

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Information sharing 

Academics  reported  that  one  of  the  main  emerging  issues  is  the  high  volume  of  data  (Big 
Data) to be analysed, since the analyses is challenging in cases of vast amounts of information, 
including the amount of additional human resources that are currently required. 

With  reference  to  the  exchange  of  information,  experts  were  critical  towards  the  current 
availability of external analyses concerning information exchange. For instance, key EU 
bodies were stated to give no access to independent researchers, which hampers transparency 
and objective analysis. 

Policy objectives 

Academic experts highlighted that when designing policies, it is important to take into account 
different  and  sometimes  conflicting  types  of  rationales.  The  main  types  which  are  usually 
considered  are:  Economic  rationality;  political  rationality;  legal  rationality  and  practical 
rationality.  Therefore,  it  is  fundamental  to  achieve  a  proper  balance  between  the  different 
rationalities  and  consider  the  relevance  of  all  of  them.  However,  according  to  the  academics 
consulted,  EU policies usually stem from political rationality and this in many  cases contrasts 
with practical and professional rationality. 

Over the last ten years, there have been some important developments, but the steps forward 
have  not  translated  into  operational  practices  that  are  easy  to  implement.  Indeed,  there  are 
regulatory  asymmetries  between  Member  States  that  need  to  be  reduced.  Such  asymmetries 
between Member States are exploited by criminals.  

2.3  Focus groups 

Objectives and overview of the focus groups  

Four focus groups were carried out to inform the Study to support the preparation of an impact 
assessment on the EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-border law enforcement cooperation.  

To inform the study and to make recommendations for possible additional measures in the area 
of intra-EU law enforcement cooperation and to propose, assess and compare policy options for 
possible  future  action,  the  Study  Team  conducted  interviews,  analysed  existing  bi-,  tri-,  and 
multilateral agreements on law enforcement cooperation between EU Member States and carried 
out three hours long focus groups on four agreements.  

This synopsis report provides an overview of the focus groups conducted, which included:  

•  The bilateral agreement between Switzerland and France;  
•  The bilateral agreement between Germany and the Czech Republic; 
•  The trilateral agreement between Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (BENELUX 

agreement); and 

•  The  multilateral  agreement  between  Norway,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Finland,  and  Iceland 

(Nordic agreement). 

These four agreements were selected in consultation with DG HOME. They were chosen due to 
the strong history on law enforcement cooperation between the countries involved, which was 
expected  to  yield  examples  of  good  practices  and  remaining  challenges  in  the  area  of  law 
enforcement cooperation. The focus groups were conducted in the second half of March 2021. 

In total 48 stakeholders participated in the focus groups (see Table 4). The stakeholders were 
selected for their experience working under the respective bi-/tri-/multilateral agreement. This 
included stakeholders with either strategic or operational level experience and stakeholders from 
either police, customs, or, other specialist departments.  

19 

 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Table 4 – Number of participants per focus group 

Agreements 

Number of participants 

Benelux Agreement (BE, NL, LU) 

DE – CZ agreement 

CH – FR agreement 

Nordic countries agreement (DK, FI, IS, NO, SE) 

9 

12 

10 

17 

Source: Author’s own elaboration, based on interviews of focus groups 

Results of the focus groups  

Benelux Agreement 

The focus group on the Treaty between the Kingdom of the  Netherlands, Kingdom of Belgium 
and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on police cooperation was conducted on 19 March 2021.4 
A total of nine stakeholders participated: five representatives from the Netherlands, two from 
Luxemburg and two from Belgium. 

The purpose of the Treaty is to intensify political cooperation in the territories of the Contracting 
Parties in terms of prevention, investigation, and detection of criminal offenses as well as the 
maintenance of public order and safety. As the Treaty is currently in the process of being ratified 
by the three Member States, the focus group also looked at differences between the currently 
applicable version of the Benelux Treaty adopted on 8 June 2004, and the new one of 23 July 
2018. Discussions and responses from stakeholders during the focus group indicate that overall, 
the treaty aligns with the wider EU framework for cooperation and exchange, and it is effective 
in  supporting  daily  police  cooperation.  It  enables  law  enforcement  activities  to  be  conducted 
without being hindered by borders. Examples include having central contact points and providing 
joint training for  specialised interventions to police units. Moreover, two improvements under 
the new Benelux treaty include the fact that across border observation can start in the  other 
country territory and that in the case of hot pursuit, authorities will have complete and unlimited 
access to proceed in other countries of the agreement.  

CZ – DE Agreement 

The focus group on the Treaty between the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany 
on Police Cooperation was held on 17 March 2021.5 A total of 12 stakeholders took part: three 
representatives from the Czech Republic and nine from Germany. 

The agreement aims to generally strengthen the cooperation between the two countries and to 
prevent and investigate criminal activities.  This includes cases that are classed as a crime by 
one party and as an administrative offence by the other party.  

During the discussion, the participants highlighted the need, importance, and effectiveness of 
this bilateral agreement. They explained that cooperation between the two countries is important 
because of crimes occurring regularly in the border region. Overall, the participants considered 
the cooperation between the two countries to be speedy, efficient, and overall uncomplicated. 
For instance, the agreement allows to exchange information directly with customs investigation 
officials and mobile units. This is useful especially during drug investigation cases or in the fight 
against smuggling. Moreover, customs and police from both countries have the possibility to join 
common training, which are often both theorical and practical.  

The discussion also indicated that a more centralised system and an increased involvement of 
the judicial authorities  would be useful to  further improve the  cooperation and avoid possible 
duplications in the exchange of information.  

4 Treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on police 
cooperation (2018).  
5 Treaty between the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany on Police Cooperation and on amendments 
to  the  Treaty  between  the  Czech  Republic  and  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany  on  amendments  to  the  European 
Convention on  Mutual Assistance  in  Criminal Matters from 20 April 1959  and  the  facilitation  of  its  application  from  2 
February 2000.  

20 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

CH – FR Agreement 

The focus group on the Agreement between the Swiss Federal Council and the government of 
the Republic of France on Cross-border Cooperation in judicial, police and custom matters was 
conducted  on  15  March  2021.6  A  total  of  ten  stakeholders  joined  the  discussion:  five  from 
Switzerland and five from France.  

The objective of the agreement is to prevent and investigate crimes and offences, as well as to 
ensure public order and safety. It came into force at a time in which Switzerland was yet part of 
the Schengen agreement, which means that the country actively pursued bilateral treaties with 
neighbouring countries. The idea of the agreement was to be en pair with the EU standards and 
to further address the needs of the police on the field. They rely on efficient communication and 
a  common  language  to  ensure  effective  cooperation.  For  instance,  they  make  use  of  liaison 
officials,  of  various  platforms  that  connect  different  agencies,  and  of  more  informal 
communication activities. Moreover, due to the area hosting many international organisations, 
the agreement also allows a smooth cooperation during demonstrations (e.g. demonstrations: 
against the Turkish government; for Armenian rights; for taxi drivers; for women rights), and 
the possibility to share information concerning risks and threats to the public order.  

However,  some  existing  processes  make  it  difficult  for  officials  to  obtain  information  and 
intelligence  quickly.  Also,  the  lack  of  a  common  legal  procedural  code  is  limiting.  Large 
differences in the two countries’ legal structure can sometimes hinder effective cooperation.  

Nordic countries Agreement 

The  focus  group  on  the  Nordic  Administrative  Agreement  on  Cooperation  between  Police 
Authorities in the Nordic countries (NO-SE-DK-IS-FI) was conducted on 22 March 2021.7 A total 
of 17 stakeholders participated: two representatives from Norway, six from Sweden, three from 
Denmark, three from Finland and three from Iceland. The participants decided to start the focus 
group by delivering a brief presentation about the agreement. As part of this presentation, the 
stakeholders mentioned the strategic objectives for the Nordic police cooperation (2019-2022) 
which include effective law enforcement, progressive and future-proof policing, a strong regional 
voice on the international Arena and good conditions for police work, in the Nordic region. 

The  agreement,  which  is  currently  being  evaluated,  aims  to  prevent,  detect,  and  investigate 
criminal offences in order to ensure public order and internal security. The discussion with the 
stakeholders indicated that this agreement constitutes a memorandum of understanding, setting 
out the parameters of the cooperation between the Nordic countries. Stakeholders believe that 
the cooperation is effective because it is mainly informal and based on trust. Cooperation takes 
place on a daily basis and is continuous between the Nordic countries. They have liaisons officials 
now  covering  32  countries,  which  facilitates  communication  and  the  fight  against  crime.  All 
countries  that  are  party  to  the  Nordic  agreement  have  access  to  the  different  liaison  officials 
(e.g.  Norway  has  access  to  Danish  liaison  officials).  They  also  have  constant  operative 
operations, e.g. on the bridge between Sweden and Denmark. 

Good practices  

The  focus  group  activity  also  informed  the  identification  of  good  practices  and  remaining 
challenges. Several focus group participants expressed that bi-/tri-/multilateral agreements are 
useful,  as  they  can  provide  additional  provisions  that  may  be  not  covered  in  other  existing 
frameworks, such as the Schengen Agreement8 and the Prüm Convention.9 

The  discussions  of  the  participants  during  the  focus  groups  highlighted  the  following  as  good 
practices: 

6  Agreement  between  the  Swiss  Federal  Council  and  the  government  of  the  Republic  of  France  on  Cross-border 
Cooperation in judicial, police and custom matters (2007). 
7 Nordic Administrative Agreement on Cooperation between Police Authorities in the Nordic countries (2016). 
8 The Schengen acquis - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments 
of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual 
abolition of checks at their common borders (1990). Available at: link. 
9 Prüm Treaty (on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime 
and illegal migration). Available at: link  

21 

 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

•  Common  training:  Considered  very  useful  to  learn  and  practice  new  skills,  establish 
trusting  relationships  and  further  foster  the  willingness  to  engage  in  cooperation.  This 
also includes information sessions provided to local police forces with the aim to explain 
the  links  between  the  operational  level  and  the  bilateral  agreement  by  showing  the 
judicial viewpoint of the agreement as well as the practical implementation. 

•  Regular  meetings:  considered  good  opportunities  to  share  experiences,  discuss 
particular  issues  across  countries,  exchange  information  and  explore  strategies  to 
prevent serious organised crime as well as an opportunity to further foster cooperation. 
During  the  COVID-19  pandemic  these  have  been  replaced  by  video  conferences,  and 
have also been used to discuss the latest infection rates and how each country was coping 
with the situation. 

•  Mixed brigades: These units include mixed intelligence groups (from all the parties of 
the agreement) that conduct basic intelligence analysis to then inform police forces.  

•  Direct  communication:  Th  participants  explained  that  quick  communication  is  an 
essential  facilitator  of  successful  collaboration.  Police  forces  need  to  communicate 
efficiently to be one step ahead of criminals.  

•  Liaison officials: These are considered essential for an effective cooperation. However, 
the  number  of  liaison  officials  differ  between  the  countries.  For  instance,  the  Nordic 
countries  have  liaison  officials  (both  customs  and  police  forces)  in  about  32  countries, 
giving  all  countries  that  are  a  party  to  the  Nordic  agreement  access  to  this  kind  of 
network, but it is not the case everywhere.  

•  Exchange  of  resources:  Some  participants  highlighted  the  importance  of  using 
contingency  plans  to  exchange  resources  for  public  order  matters.  This  includes  the 
exchange of materials, special equipment, and staffing.  

•  Specific investigative tools: For example, in the case of hot pursuit, this involves the 
abolition of the distinction required between ‘urgent’ and ‘not urgent’ requests, and the 
unlimited possibilities to pursuit.  

•  Willingness to cooperate: By all the participants this was considered a fundamental 

ingredient of effective cross-border cooperation.  

Challenges  

Although  the  focus  group  participants  mentioned  many  advantages  of  the  bi-/tri-/multilateral 
agreements  in  question,  and  shared  various  good  practices,  they  also  touched  upon  some 
remaining challenges. During the discussions they identified a few shortcomings of - and gaps 
in  -  the  EU  framework  for  intra-EU  law  enforcement  cooperation  and  shed  light  on  internal 
cooperation issues. The key points highlighted below: 

•  Lack of harmonisation and persistent structural differences between countries were 

considered the biggest challenges for law enforcement cooperation.  

•  Legislative  perspective:  A  key  deficiency  identified  is  the  lack  of  harmonisation 
between national  criminal procedural codes, which hampers  coordination during cross-
border  criminal  investigations.  Moreover,  there  is  a  lack  of  understanding  of  the 
procedures  and  regulations  on  investigative  tools  (e.g.  surveillance  and  hot  pursuit), 
which also differ between countries, leading to challenges using these tools.  

•  Operational perspective: Another key deficiency identified is the limited effectiveness 
of SPOCs, often due to the limited resources allocated to them at the national level, both 
in terms of number and type of police forces available.  

•  Challenges  related  to  the  exchange  of  information:  Difficulties  to  easily  find  out 
what type of information is available in other countries, and logistic, budget and personnel 
limitations hinder the ability to exchange information and follow up quickly.  

22 

 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

In summary  

Overall,  the  focus  group  activity  provided  a  wide  range  of  views  regarding  cross-border  law 
enforcement  cooperation  in  terms  of  what  is  working  well  and  what  is  working  less  well.  The 
focus groups shed light on the cross-border law enforcement cooperation related measures and 
practices existing at the EU and national level, within the countries of the agreements selected. 
The discussions also indicated difficulties following a lack of harmonisation in the investigative 
tools used to tackle and combat organised crime as well as a need for a minimum EU standard 
for organised crime investigations.  

2.4  Technical workshops  

2.4.1  First technical workshop 

The  first  technical  workshop,  which  was  held  on  24  March  2021  and  to  which  close  to  200 
participants  registered,  involved  a  presentation  by  the  Study  Team  of  preliminary  findings 
concerning notably the problem assessment and interactive parallel workshops.  

The  main  findings  from  the  discussions  in  the  break-out  sessions  in  the  workshop  were  as 
follows: 

What are the issues at stake?  

Access to and exchange of information 

•  Key issues include limited awareness of and access to relevant EU and national databases 

as well as limited interoperability of national systems; 

•  Some  issues  specifically  relate  to  the  implementation  of  the  SFD,  notably  the  forms 
included  as  an  annex  to  the  SFD  are  too  cumbersome  and  the  definition  of 
urgency/timeframe is not clear; 

•  Police-to-police  requests  instead  of  other  equally  effective  mechanisms  (such  as 

EUCARIS, ECRIS, VIS etc). 

Cross-border and pan European operational action for public order and safety purposes 

•  Many  participants  use  Joint  Patrols  to  a  moderate  or  low  extent.  Differences  exist 
concerning  “sending”  and  “receiving”  officials.  There  is  more  intense  cooperation  with 
direct neighbours than with other Member States; 

•  The  main  practical  issues  stem  from  differences  in  scope  between  Prüm  (e.g.  Art.  17) 
and the CISA. In addition, there are differences between EU legislation and bi-/tri- and 
multilateral agreements. Prüm is “theoretical” and not used in practice; 

•  Knowledge and experience on how and which agreement to use is currently necessary; 
the current landscape of agreements is very complex and time-consuming to understand. 

Cross-border and pan European operational action against serious and organised crime 

•  There  is  a  need  for  a  common  legal  framework  (e.g.  to  understand  police/customs 

involvement, and to clarify the preferred channel of communication); 

•  Tools to communicate and exchange data securely are not available to all authorities; 

•  The numerous agreements in place lead to a complex situation, but bi-/tri-/multilateral 
agreements are still needed, since there is not a general framework for every tool (e.g. 
surveillance and controlled deliveries in a transit context, hot pursuit). 

How  are  the  current  problems  expected  to  develop  in  case  no  further  EU  action  is 
taken? 

Access to and exchange of information 

•  Current problems will become more relevant in case no further EU action is taken; 

•  The worsening of current problems is mainly attributed to new and evolving technological 

developments likely to affect the access to and exchange of information. 

23 

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

Cross-border and pan European operational action for public order and safety purposes  

•  Problems will remain to exist if EU legislation continues to refer to national law. 

Cross-border and pan European operational action against serious and organised crime  

•  Problems may become  more relevant, and the  role  of EU agencies may  expand in the 

future. 

Is there a need for EU intervention to address current problems? 

Access to and exchange of information 

•  Current problems need to be addressed at the EU level. 

Cross-border and pan European operational action for public order and safety purposes  

•  See next point on actions to be taken. 

Cross-border and pan European operational action against serious and organised crime  

•  Harmonisation  of  the  definitions  and  procedures  relating  to  investigative  tools  and 
improving  the  consistency  of  existing  measures  should  be  key  outcomes  of  any 
codification process; 

•  The  variety  of  tools  (e.g.  controlled  deliveries,  surveillance,  hot  pursuits)  need  to  be 
harmonised,  and  new  tools  as  audio  recording,  GPS  tracking  should  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

What types of policy measures could be considered to address the current problems? 

Access to and exchange of information 

• 

In order to improve access to and information exchange, EU intervention should ensure 
full  interconnection  and  streamlining  of  available  systems  for  the  exchange  of 
information, the overall consistency of the EU legal framework, and the full awareness 
and capacity of national law enforcement authorities. It should also ensure the integration 
of modern requirements into fundamental rights and data protection rules. 

Cross-border and pan European operational action for public order and safety purposes  

•  Most important for the way forward were stated to be: 

o  Constantly  gather  feedback  from  operational  officers  on  the  ground  and  try  to 

improve operational collaboration; 

o  Training should be developed and implemented; 

•  Potential Internal Security Fund (ISF) funding for Joint Patrols. 

Cross-border and pan European operational action against serious and organised crime  

•  The long-term solution would be to have one  Law Enforcement Cooperation Code. If a 
Code is proposed by the Commission, it should be balanced and be a Law Enforcement 
Cooperation Code and not a Police Code; 

•  Extend  the  scope  of  surveillance  (e.g.  need  of  including  more  crimes  under  the  same 

framework - tobacco smuggling). 

24 

 
 
Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

2.4.2  Second technical workshop 

The  second  technical  workshop  aimed  at  collecting  national  stakeholder’s  points  of  view  on 
possible  EU  measures  to  address  current  problems  affecting  cross-border  law  enforcement 
cooperation in relation to the access to and exchange of information, operational cooperation for 
public  order  and  safety  and  operational  cooperation  for  SOC  and  terrorism,  as  well  as  the 
discussion  of  likely  impacts  of  these  potential  EU  measures.  Similarly  to  the  first  technical 
workshop, close to 200 persons signed up for the workshop. The workshop took place on 25 May 
2021. 

The main findings from each of the three breakout sessions are as follows: 

Breakout session 1 - Access to and exchange of necessary information 

•  Set-up and competences of the SPOC and PCCCs 

o  Strengths: Time savings, more clarity of competences, responsibilities and rules, 
increased  monitoring  of  possibilities  for  the  SPOCs  concerning  the  cases,  the 
access to national and international databases and platforms, possibility to ask for 
judicial authority support at any moment, and common standards of CMS; 

o  Weaknesses: The feasibility of some of the measures depending on the national-
set up was questioned, and the structural differences of SPOCs, PCCCs and judicial 
authorities between Member States, and the actual availability of data highlighted 
as challenges. 

•  SPOC/PCCC Case Management Systems in the Member States 

o  Strengths: An intelligent tool would facilitate the workflow, presence of minimum 
essential requirements for CMS for all Member States, time savings, better data 
quality, avoidance of duplications, establishment of similar workflows in different 
Member States; 

o  Weaknesses: Costs for Member States in developing the CMS, feasibility linked to 
national  specificities  (the  integration  of  specific  solution  within  the  national 
systems might be challenging, depending on the current individual solution used 
in the Member State). 

• 

Information exchange via SIENA and other communication channels 

o  Strengths:  Time  savings,  increased  clarity  on  which  communication  channel 

should be used when, increased level of security; 

o  Weaknesses: Complexity of access rights. 

•  Use of secure communication means 

o  Strengths:  The  idea  of  a  “LEA  app”  was  considered  as  interesting  by  some 

participants. 

•  Training activities 

o  Strengths:  Additional  material  provided  by  CEPOL  would  be  welcomed,  and 

harmonisation of the procedures would simplify the training; 

o  Weaknesses:  Training  should  not  be  too  general  but  targeted,  both  in  terms  of 
the form and the content (e.g. efficient use of SIENA). The limited availability of 
time for the officials on the ground should be considered. 

Breakout session 2 - Operational cooperation for public order and safety 

•  Conferral of certain operational powers to officials of seconding MS 

o  Strengths: This would facilitate operational cooperation since the Member States 
are  closer  aligned  in  practice,  and  “foreign”  officials  are  quicker  to  respond  to 
situations than “domestic” officials, e.g. in remote locations; 

o  Weaknesses:  Exact  legal  definitions  of  the  types  of  powers  to  be  conferred  are 
still  somewhat  unclear.  It  is  necessary  to  elaborate  exact  legal  definitions  that 
could  form  a  base  for  common  action.  The  political  feasibility  of  the  measure 
depends on the legal definitions and how it is presented. 

•  Access to police databases for officials on the ground 

25 

Study to support the preparation of an impact assessment on EU policy initiatives facilitating cross-
border law enforcement cooperation 

o  Strengths: Access potentially increases the clarity of what can/should be done in 

critical situations; 

o  Weaknesses: There is a need to define what officials involved in joint operations 
can  do  with  the  different  types  of  available  information.  Access  to  data  can 
potentially be abused by officials if shared with other Member States. 

•  Establishment of appropriate financial instruments by the Commission 

o  Strengths:  Support  to  setting  up  joint  operations  may  facilitate  political 
discussions,  increased  budget  should  be  spent  on  training  of  law  enforcement 
officials, including on technical means to facilitate training and knowledge sharing 
on the ground; 

•  Sharing of risk analysis and threat assessment with other Member States for the purpose 

of tailored joint operations 

o  Strengths: Improved cross-border cooperation as Member States can base their 
action on common knowledge and implement tailored measures, intelligence-lead 
approach. 

Breakout session 3 - Operational cooperation for SOC and terrorism 

•  Surveillance 

o  Strengths: Extending the list of offences for which surveillance is allowed under 
CISA,  clarifying/harmonising  the  rules  on  the  use  of  technical  means  of 
surveillance,  extending  use  surveillance  under  CISA  to  waterways,  sea  and  air 
borders, clarification of the definition of surveillance as well as common minimum 
criteria for applying this tool; 

o  Weaknesses: Some of the measures included in the options may require additional 
resources  from  Member  States.  There  should  be  careful  consideration  of  the 
impacts on national competences. 

•  Hot pursuit 

o  Strengths:  The  list  of  offences  for  which  hot  pursuit  is  permitted  should  be 
extended. The suggested options could improve the clarity of existing rules;  
o  Weaknesses: Kilometre ranges/time limits are not the key issues to improve hot 

pursuits. 

26 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person  
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You 
can find the address of the centre nearest you at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 
contact this service: 
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
- by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online  
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You 
download 
can 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your 
local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

publications 

priced 

from: 

order 

free 

and 

EU 

or 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU 
The  official  portal  for  European  data  (https://data.europa.eu/en)  provides  access  to 
datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial 
and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
R
-
0
1
-
2
1
-
4
2
2
-
E
N
-
N

         doi: 10.2837/42778 

ISBN 978-92-76-43508-2