Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising Member States to sign, in the interest of the European Union, the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
Date: 2025-09-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, international convention, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, protocol to an agreement, signature of an agreement

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.9.2025  COM(2025) 510 final 2025/0286 (NLE)  Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising Member States to sign, in the interest of the European Union, the Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

Objectives of the proposal 

The  present  proposal  concerns  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  ('the 
Council') authorising Member States of the Union ('the Member States') to sign, in the interest 
of  the  Union,  the  Third  Additional  Protocol to  the  European  Convention  on  Mutual 
Assistance in Criminal Matters (‘the Protocol’)(1). The aim of the Protocol is to strengthen the 
ability of states to respond effectively to crime by improving and supplementing the mutual 
assistance  procedures  set  out  in the  1959  European  Convention  on  Mutual  Assistance  in 
Criminal Matters (the ‘1959 Convention’) as well as its first two Additional Protocols. 

The  Commission  will  also  submit  a  proposal  for  a  decision  of  the  Council  authorising 
Member States to ratify the Protocol in the interest of the Union. 

Since  the  Convention  was  first  established  in  1959  and entered  into  force  in  1962,  criminal 
activities  have  become  ever  more  transnational,  presenting  complex  challenges  for  law 
enforcement  and  judicial  authorities.  Crimes  such  as  drug  trafficking,  terrorism,  cybercrime 
and money laundering often involve perpetrators, witnesses and evidence located in multiple 
jurisdictions. As a result, international cooperation in criminal matters is  essential  – and this 
cooperation should be as rapid, effective and efficient as possible. While the Member States 
benefit from close internal cooperation in criminal matters, they must also engage effectively 
with third countries to tackle transnational threats. 

Mutual assistance mechanisms serve as the cornerstone of this cooperation, enabling judicial 
and  law  enforcement  authorities  to  request  and  provide  evidence,  carry  out procedural  acts, 
and  support  investigations  that  span  national  boundaries  –  within a  framework  that  respects 
sovereignty and legal safeguards. 

The  Protocol  responds  to  the  evolving  nature  of  crime,  the  movement  of  people  across 
technological  developments.  It modernises the  existing  provisions 
borders,  and  new 
governing  mutual  assistance,  thereby improving judicial  and  law  enforcement  cooperation. 
Key updates include: - putting in place common rules for cooperation concerning (i) the use 
of  technical  recording  devices  in  the  territory  of  another  Party  to  the  Protocol;  and  (ii)  the 
interception  of  telecommunications;  -  increasing  the  number  of  circumstances  in  which 
hearings  by  videoconference  may  be  requested;  -  prioritising  electronic  channels  of 
communication  between  competent  authorities;  -  introducing  obligations  related  to  timely 
execution of requests for mutual assistance; and - updating the provisions on the protection of 
personal  data transferred from  one Party to  another as a result of the execution of a request 
made under the 1959 Convention or any of its Protocols. 

Background 

The  purpose  of  the  1959  Convention  is  to  strengthen  the  capacity  of  States  Parties  to 
effectively  respond  to  crime  by  establishing  common  rules  for  international  cooperation  in 
criminal matters, specifically in the area of mutual assistance. As a foundational instrument in 
international criminal justice cooperation, the 1959 Convention is widely recognised and has 
been acceded to by both members of the Council of Europe and non-members, reflecting its 
broad regional and global relevance. 

(1) 

The  text  of  the  Protocol  will  be  annexed  to  the  proposal  for  a  Council  Decision  authorising  Member 
States to ratify, in the interest of the Union, the Protocol. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
The  1959  Convention  remains  the  principal  legal  basis  for  mutual  assistance  in  criminal 
matters  between  Member  States  and  third  countries,  particularly  where  no  more  specific 
bilateral  or  regional  agreements  exist.  While  the  1959  Convention's  application  between 
Member States has been largely superseded by Union law, it still applies to a limited extent 
where  no  corresponding  Union  provisions  are  in  place.  This  ensures  continuity  and  legal 
certainty in cross-border cooperation. 

The  1959  Convention has  been  supplemented  by  two  additional  protocols:  the Additional 
Protocol, signed in 1978 and entered into force in 1982, and the Second Additional Protocol, 
signed in 2001 and entered into force in 2004. The 1959 Convention is open to Member States 
of the Council of Europe, and to non-members upon invitation. To date, the 1959 Convention 
has  50  States  Parties,  including  all  27  EU  Member  States.  The  Additional  Protocol  has  42 
States Parties, including all 27 EU Member States, while the Second Additional Protocol has 
42 States Parties,  including 26 EU Member States. The 1959 Convention  does not  envisage 
that the European Union may accede to it. 

In response to the recognised need to update the 1959 Convention and its Second Additional 
Protocol a proposal for a new protocol was included in the 2022–2025 terms of reference of 
the  Committee  of  Experts  on  the  Operation  of  European  Conventions  on  Co-operation  in 
Criminal  Matters  (PC-OC),  as  approved  by  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of 
Europe. This update was needed in particular to reflect the rapid changes in mutual assistance 
practices  in  recent  years,  including  the  increased  use  of  video-conferencing  and  other 
technological tools, notably during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, there was a need to 
address certain shortcomings identified by practitioners. 

The PC-OC drafted the new Protocol on the basis of proposals made by various delegations. 
Member States participated in the negotiations of the Protocol. The Protocol was finalised by 
the PC-OC at its 86th meeting (12-14 November 2024) and was adopted by the Committee of 
Ministers of the Council of Europe on 4 June 2025. It is envisaged to be opened for signature 
on 18-19 September 2025. 

Reasons for the proposal 

The  Protocol  will  enter  into  force  once  three  signatories  have  expressed  their  consent  to  be 
bound by the Protocol in accordance with its Article 10. The ceremony at which the Protocol 
will be signed is envisaged to take place on 18-19 September 2025. 

The  swift  entry  into  force  of  the  Protocol  is  in  the  interest  of  the  Union  for a  number  of 
reasons. 

First, the Protocol will ensure that judicial and other competent authorities are better equipped 
to request and provide evidence and other assistance necessary for criminal investigations. By 
simplifying and accelerating existing  mutual  assistance procedures, the Protocol  strengthens 
the ability of states to respond to cross-border threats. It supplements the original Convention 
and its first two Protocols, adapting them to today’s challenges. 

Second,  the  Protocol  will  ensure  that  measures  to  obtain  evidence  and  provide  other 
assistance will be used in a manner that allows Member States to respect fundamental rights, 
including  criminal  procedural  rights,  the  right  to  privacy  and  the  right  to  the  protection  of 
personal  data.  In  particular,  in  the  absence  of  clear  rules  at  international  level  for 
measures such as the use of technical recording devices, it may prove difficult to ensure that 
existing  practices  uphold  legal  certainty,  the respect  of  fundamental  rights  and  suspects' 
procedural guarantees in criminal investigations. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

Third,  the  Protocol is  in  line  with  the  Union’s  objectives  set  out  in  ProtectEU,  the  2025 
European  Internal  Security  Strategy(2)  to  tighten the  net  on  serious  and  organised 
crime by strengthening  judicial  cooperation  and  providing EU  criminal  justice  systems 
with effective tools to address emerging threats. It complements existing EU and international 
instruments to which the EU and/or its Member States are parties and thus contributes to the 
EU’s fight against transnational crime. 

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

The current Union legal  framework includes instruments on judicial cooperation in criminal 
matters,  in  particular, Directive  2014/41/EU  regarding  the  European  Investigation  Order  in 
criminal  matters  and the  2000  Convention,  established  by  the  Council  in  accordance  with 
Article  34  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union,  on  Mutual  Assistance  in  Criminal  Matters 
between  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union,  as  well  as  the  2001  Protocol  to  that 
Convention.  The  latter  Convention  and  the  2001  Protocol  still  apply  in  the  relations 
with Member  States  not  bound  by  Directive  2014/41/EU.  Furthermore,  Regulation  (EU) 
2023/2844  (the  Digitalisation  Regulation)  and  Directive  (EU)  2023/2843  (the  Digitalisation 
Directive) set out a uniform legal framework for the use of electronic communication between 
competent  authorities  in  judicial  cooperation  procedures  in criminal  matters,  including 
for procedures  under  Directive  2014/41/EU.  The  current  European  Union  legal  framework 
also includes Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA on the organisation and content of 
the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States, and 
Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the 
European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (‘the  EPPO’).  Member  States  that  participate  in  the 
enhanced cooperation should ensure that the EPPO can, in the exercise of its competences as 
provided for by Articles 22, 23 and 25 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, seek cooperation under 
the  Protocol  in  the  same  way  as  national  prosecutors  of  those  Member  States.  These 
instruments  and  agreements  relate,  in  particular,  to  Articles  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6  and 7 of  the 
Protocol.  

Moreover,  the  Union  has  adopted  several  directives  that  strengthen  procedural  rights  of 
suspects  and  accused  persons,  namely  Directives  2010/64/EU,  2012/13/EU,  2013/48/EU, 
(EU) 2016/343,  (EU)  2016/800 and  (EU)  2016/1919. These  instruments  relate,  in  particular, 
to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Protocol. One particular set of safeguards concerns the protection 
of personal data, which is a fundamental right enshrined in the EU Treaties and in the Charter 
of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union. Personal  data  may  only  be  processed  in 
accordance  with Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  (the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation) and 
Directive  (EU)  2016/680  (the Law  Enforcement Directive).  The  fundamental  right  of 
everyone to the respect of their private and family life, home and communications includes as 
an  essential  element  the  respect  for  the  privacy  of  one’s  communications.  Electronic 
communications  data  can  only  be  processed  in  accordance  with  Directive  2002/58/EC  (the 
ePrivacy Directive). These instruments relate, in particular, to Article 7 of the Protocol. 

Externally,  the  Union  has  concluded  a  number  of agreements  with  third  countries.  These 
include the  Agreements  on  Mutual  Legal  Assistance  between  the  European  Union  and  the 
United States of America, between the European Union and Japan and between the European 
Union  and  Norway  and  Iceland,  as  well  as  the  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement  (TCA) 
between the Union  and the UK. The TCA  establishes a framework for mutual assistance by 
supplementing the 1959 Convention and its first two Additional Protocols. 

(2) 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ProtectEU: a European Internal 
Security Strategy, COM(2025) 148 final. 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

Other Union policies are not affected by the Protocol. 

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

Article  218(5)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  provides 
that where the agreement envisaged does not relate exclusively or principally to the common 
foreign and security policy, the Commission is required to submit a proposal to the Council. 
The Council will adopt a decision authorising the signing of the agreement. 

The substantive legal basis depends primarily on the objective and content of the envisaged 
act.  The  proposal  has  two  main  aims  and  components: (i)  facilitating cooperation  between 
judicial or other competent authorities in relation to proceedings in criminal matters; and (ii) 
protecting personal data in the context of such cooperation. Thus, the substantive legal bases 
are Article 82(1) and Article 16(2) TFEU.  

• Union competence 

The Protocol sets out rules in the field of mutual assistance in criminal matters. This falls, in 
principle, within shared competence between the Union and the Member States in accordance 
with Article 4(2)(j) TFEU. Moreover, the Protocol sets out rules in the field of the protection 
of personal data. 

Pursuant to Article 3(2) TFEU, the Union has exclusive competence for the conclusion of an 
international  agreement in  so  far  as  its  conclusion  may  affect  common  rules  or  alter  their 
scope. Certain parts of the Protocol, notably its rules on the protection of personal data, fall 
within  an  area  covered  to  a  large  extent  by  internal  rules  which  may  be  affected  or  whose 
scope be altered by those parts.  

The Protocol thus falls within the Union's exclusive external competence. The signature of the 
Protocol by Member States, in the interest of the Union, may thus take place on the basis of 
Article 16(2), Article 82(1) and Article 218(5) TFEU. 

• 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence) 

Not applicable.  

• 

Proportionality 

The Union’s objectives  with  regard to  this proposal,  as set  out  in  the section above  entitled 
‘Reasons  for  the  proposal’,  can  only  be  achieved  by  entering  into  a  binding  international 
agreement  providing  for  the  necessary  cooperation  measures  while  ensuring  appropriate 
protection  of  fundamental  rights.  The  Protocol  achieves  this  objective. Also,  adhering  to  a 
multilateral  agreement such as the Protocol  is  more  efficient  than entering into negotiations 
with  individual  non-EU  countries  at  bilateral  level.  The  Protocol's  provisions  are  limited  to 
what is necessary to achieve its main objectives. They strike a fair balance between the need 
to  ensure  effective  judicial  cooperation  and  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  of  persons 
concerned by the measures covered by the Protocol. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

This proposal for a Council decision is submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 
218  TFEU,  which  envisages the  Council's  adoption  of  a  decision  authorising  the  signing  of 
the  agreement  by  the  Member  States  in  the  interest  of  the  Union.  There  is  no  other  legal 
instrument that could be used to achieve this proposal's stated objective. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

Not applicable 

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

Not applicable 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

Not applicable 

• 

Impact assessment 

Relevant impacts are presented in this explanatory memorandum. 

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

Not applicable 

• 

Fundamental rights 

The  Protocol  provides  safeguards  allowing  EU  Member  States  to comply  with their  human 
rights  obligations  under  international,  EU  and  national  law.  These  safeguards  also  prevent 
States  parties  from  abusing  this  instrument  in  order  to  commit  or  legitimise  human  rights 
violations. 

The  Protocol  covers  international  cooperation  measures  in  criminal  matters,  namely:  (i) 
mutual assistance procedures; (ii) a notification procedure for the use of technical  recording 
devices  in  urgent  situations;  and  (iii)  a  notification  procedure  for  the  interception  of 
telecommunications in the territory of another party without that party's technical assistance. 
Such  procedures  are  likely  to  affect  fundamental  rights such  as  the  right  to  a  fair  trial,  the 
right to privacy and the right to the protection of personal data. The Protocol follows a rights-
based approach and provides for conditions  and safeguards in line with  international human 
rights  instruments  including  the  1950  Council  of  Europe  Convention  for  the  Protection  of 
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, the Protocol contains dedicated rules 
on the protection of personal data. Where necessary, the Protocol provides a basis for parties 
to make certain reservations, declarations or notifications. It also includes additional grounds 
to  refuse  cooperation in  response to  a mutual  assistance request  or  a notification in  specific 
situations.  In  addition,  it  allows  for the  possibility  to  restrict  the  use  of  the  notification 
procedure  to  certain  criminal  offences  or  to  prohibit  the  collection  of  data  in  private  homes 
and places not accessible to the public. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

There are no budgetary implications for the Union budget. Member States may have one-off 
costs  when  implementing  the  Protocol  and  there  could  be  a  moderate  increase  in costs  for 
Member State authorities due to the expected rise in the number of requests for international 
cooperation. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

There  is  no  implementation  plan.  This  is  because  Member  States  will  be  required  to 
implement the Protocol following its signature and ratification. 

EN 

5 

  EN 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Article 1 of the Protocol addresses the channels of communication to be used for requests for 
mutual assistance, spontaneous information exchange, requests related to judicial records and 
requests  for  copies  of  convictions  and  measures,  as  well  as  laying  of  information  in 
connection  with  proceeding.  It  replaces  Article  15  of  the  1959  Convention,  as  modified  by 
Article  4  of  the  Second  Additional  Protocol,  as  well  as  Article  21(1)  of  the  1959 
Convention. Article  1  identifies secure  means  of  electronic  communication  as  the  preferred 
method.  The  provision  further  specifies  the  range  of  competent  authorities  which  can  make 
particular requests, depending on the subject. 

Article  2  of  the  Protocol  concerns  hearings  by  video  conference,  replacing  Article  9  of  the 
Second Additional Protocol. This article reflects the development of practices which emerged 
during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  allows  greater flexibility  opt  for  a  hearing  by  video 
conference, whenever appropriate.  It  sets  out  a  procedure for requesting  the  hearing  of  a 
witness or an expert by video conference according to the rules set out in this article, which 
establish  the  necessary safeguards. The  requested  party will  be  obliged  to  agree  to  such  a 
hearing,  provided  that  the  use  of  video  conference  is  not  contrary  to  the  fundamental 
principles of that Party's law and that it has the technical means to carry it out. Parties may at 
their discretion facilitate video conferences involving the accused person or the suspect, but 
only with the agreement of the competent judicial authorities and the individual concerned, in 
accordance with national law and relevant international instruments. 

Article 3 of the Protocol establishes a  framework for the use of technical  recording devices 
that  record  positions,  sound or  images  in  the  territory  of  another  party.  The  article  provides 
that,  whenever  possible,  requests  to  carry  out  such  surveillance  on  the  territory  of  another 
party should be made in advance. Requests may be refused on the grounds that the recording 
would not have been allowed in a similar domestic case according to the law of the requested 
party.  Requests  may  also  be  refused  on  the  grounds  set  out  in  Articles  2  and  5  of  the  1959 
Convention.  These  grounds  include  cases  where  the  request  concerns  an  offence  which  the 
requested party considers a political offence, or an offence connected with a political offence; 
or where the requested party considers that execution of the request is likely to prejudice the 
sovereignty,  security,  public  order  or  other  essential  interests  of  its  country.  Article  3  also 
provides  for  urgent  situations  where  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  request  in  advance  of  a 
technical recording device entering another country. In such cases, the party using the device 
is required to immediately notify the other party. That notified party must, as soon as possible 
and within 96 hours at the latest, indicate whether the device may remain active or whether it 
validates past activity. In cases where a recording would not have been allowed in a similar 
domestic case according to the law of the notified party, it may decide that the recording is 
not  to  be  carried  out  or  must be  terminated.  The  procedure  also  allows the  notified  party  to 
impose certain conditions, including: (i) that any material already recorded while the subject 
was on its territory may not be used, or that it may be used only under certain conditions; (ii) 
that the continuation or validation of the recording is dependent on the submission of a formal 
request for mutual assistance; or (iii) that the data recorded on its territory should be partially 
or  fully  destroyed.  The  notifying  party  may  not  use  the  recordings  as  evidence  in  criminal 
proceedings without  explicit  authorisation  of  the  notified  party.  Article  3  also  provides 
options  for  parties  to  declare  that  they  will  apply  certain  restrictions  to  the  notification 
procedure. Such restrictions may include a prohibition on data collection in private homes and 
places not accessible to the public, and/or limiting authorisation to investigations concerning 
certain criminal offences. 

Article  4  of  the  Protocol  sets  out  a  framework  for  Parties  to  request  that  another  Party 
intercepts  telecommunications in  the context of criminal  investigations. The requested Party 

EN 

6 

  EN 

may refuse execution, on the same grounds that it may refuse requests made under Article 3. 
The  requested  Party  may  also  impose  conditions  on  the  execution  of  requests,  such  as 
requiring destruction of irrelevant recorded data, notifying the intercepted individual after the 
measure, limiting the use of the evidence to the purposes specified in the request, or imposing 
any other conditions applicable in a similar domestic case. Judicial authorities in the requested 
Party may destroy parts of the records deemed irrelevant or covered by legal privilege before 
transmitting  them  to  the  requesting  Party.  Article  4  also  allows  Parties  to  apply by  mutual 
agreement the  notification  procedure  provided 
interception  of 
telecommunications  in  the  territory  of  another  Party  without  the  technical  assistance  of  that 
Party. 

in  Article  3 

the 

to 

Article 5 of the Protocol sets out rules on the payment of costs involved in the provision of 
mutual assistance, replacing Article 20 of the 1959 Convention, as modified by Article 5 of 
the  Second  Additional  Protocol.  The  article sets  out  a  list  of  particular  costs  that  will  be 
refunded  by  the  requesting  Party,  unless  the  Parties  agree  otherwise.  The  list  of  particular 
costs  that  will  be  refunded  by  the  requesting  Party  has  been  expanded to  include  ‘the  costs 
which  are  incurred  by  telecommunications  operators  or  service  providers  in  executing 
requests  for  the  interception  of  telecommunications,  as  well  as  the  costs  arising  from  the 
transcription, decoding and decrypting of the intercepted communications when applicable’.  

Article 6 of the Protocol addresses the issue of timely execution of mutual assistance requests 
in  criminal  matters.  It  establishes  a  general  principle  that  such  requests  should  be  handled 
with the same celerity and priority as comparable domestic cases. 

Article  7  of  the  Protocol  addresses  data  protection,  replacing  Article  26  of  the  Second 
Additional Protocol. It provides that personal data transferred as a result of the execution of a 
request made under the Convention or its Protocols may only be used by the receiving Party 
(i) for the purpose of proceedings to which the Convention or any of its Protocols apply; (ii) 
for judicial or administrative proceedings which are directly linked; or (iii) for preventing an 
immediate and serious threat to public security. Data may be used for other purposes, if prior 
consent is provided by either the transferring Party or the data subject. Parties may refuse to 
transfer  personal  data  obtained  as  a  result  of  the  execution  of  a  request  made  under  the 
Convention  or  its  Protocols  where  such  data  are  protected  under  their  national  legislation, 
and/or  when  the  receiving  Party  is  not  bound  by  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  for  the 
Protection  of  Individuals  with  regard  to  Automatic  Processing  of  Personal  Data  (ETS  No. 
108), as  modernised by the Protocol  amending this  Convention (CETS No. 223), unless the 
receiving  Party  undertakes  to  afford  such  protection  to  the  data  as  is  required  by  the 
transferring  Party.  Any  Party  that  transfers  personal  data  obtained  as  a  result  of  a  request 
made  under  the  Convention  or  its  Protocols  may  require  the  receiving  Party  to  provide 
information of the use made of the data. Finally, any Party may, by a declaration, require that, 
within  the  framework  of  procedures  for  which  it  could  have  refused  or  limited  the 
transmission or the use of personal data in accordance with the provisions of the Convention 
or one of its Protocols,  personal data which it transmits to another Party not be used by the 
latter unless with its previous consent. 

The  remaining  articles  of  the  Protocol  provide  for:  the  friendly  settlement  of  difficulties 
regarding the interpretation of the Convention and its protocols (Article 8); a summary of how 
the  provisions  of  the  Protocol  relate  to  existing  provisions  in  the  Convention  and  its 
Additional  Protocols  (Article  9);  principles  governing  the  Parties’  signature  of  the  Protocol 
and  its  entry  into  force  (Article  10);  accession  to  the  Protocol  (Article  11);  its  territorial 
application (Article 12); reservations and declarations (Article 13); denunciation (Article 14); 
and  notifications  (Article  15).  Article  9,  in  particular, provides  that the  provisions  of  the 
Protocol  are  without  prejudice  to  Article  26  of  the  1959  Convention.  The  latter 

EN 

7 

  EN 

provision concerns the relationship between the 1959 Convention and other agreements, and 
allows Parties, which provide mutual assistance on the basis of uniform legislation, to exclude 
as  between  themselves  the  application  of  the  1959 Convention  and  to  notify  the  Secretary 
General of the Council of Europe accordingly. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

2025/0286 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

authorising Member States to sign, in the interest of the European Union, the Third 
Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal 
Matters 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 16(2) and Article 82(1), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(1) 

(2) 

The  Third  Additional  Protocol  to  the  European  Convention  on  Mutual  Assistance  in 
Criminal  Matters (‘the Protocol’) was  adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the 
Council of Europe on 4 June 2025, and is envisaged to be opened for signature on 18-
19 September 2025. 

The  Protocol  provides  for  procedures  that  improve  and  facilitate  mutual  legal 
assistance. Member States becoming a Party to it should support the European Union's 
efforts in combating organised crime and other forms of crime at international level. It 
facilitates cooperation between the Member State Parties and third-country Parties to 
the Protocol while ensuring a high level of protection of individuals. To that end, the 
Protocol  contains  dedicated  rules  on  the  protection  of  personal  data  transferred  to 
third-country Parties in the context of such cooperation. 

The  Union  is  competent  to  adopt  rules  in  the  areas  covered  by  the  Protocol  and  has 
exercised that competence through the adoption of various legal acts such as Directive 
2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and the Council(1) and Directive 2016/680/EU 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council(2). Certain  parts  of  the  Protocol,  such  as 
the rules on the protection of personal data, fall within areas covered to a large extent 
by common rules within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union that may be affected, or the scope of which may be altered, by 
the Protocol. 

A  number  of  reservations,  declarations  and  notifications  may  be relevant  to  ensure 
compatibility  of  the  Protocol  with  Union  law  and  policies,  as  well  as  the  uniform 
application of the Protocol amongst Member States in their relation with third-country 

Investigation  Order 

in  criminal  matters 

Directive  2014/41/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  regarding  the 
(OJ  L  130,  1.5.2014,  pp.  1,  ELI: 
European 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/41/oj). 
Directive  (EU)  2016/680  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for 
the  purposes  of  the  prevention,  investigation,  detection  or  prosecution  of  criminal  offences  or  the 
execution  of  criminal  penalties,  and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data,  and  repealing  Council 
Framework 
ELI: 
Decision 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/680/oj). 

2008/977/JHA 

4.5.2016, 

119, 

(OJ 

89, 

p. 

L 

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
Parties,  and  the  effective  application  of  the  Protocol. However,  no  reservations, 
declarations or notifications shall be made by Member States at the time of signing or 
before the adoption of the Decision of the Council authorising the Member States to 
ratify the Protocol in the interest of the Union. 

(5)  Member  States  that  participate  in  the  enhanced  cooperation  established  by  Council 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/1939(3)  should  ensure  that  the  European  Public  Prosecutor's 
Office can, in the exercise of its competences as provided for in Articles 22, 23 and 25 
of  that  Regulation,  seek  cooperation  under  the  Protocol  in  the  same  way  as  national 
prosecutors of those Member States. 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  was  consulted  in  accordance  with 
Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council(4)  and 
delivered an opinion on [...]. 

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

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

The  Union  cannot  sign  the  Protocol,  as  only  states  can  be  parties  thereto.  Member 
States  should  therefore  be  authorised  to  sign  the  Protocol,  acting  jointly  in  the 
interest of the Union, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: 

The  Member  States  are  hereby  authorised  to  sign,  in  the  interest  of  the  Union,  the 
Third Additional  Protocol  to  the  European  Convention  on  Mutual  Assistance  in  criminal 
matters (‘the Protocol’)(5). 

Article 1 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Council  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1939  of  12  October  2017  implementing  enhanced  cooperation  on  the 
establishment  of  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (‘the  EPPO’)  (OJ  L  283,  31.10.2017,  p.  1, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/1939/oj). 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, 
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC)  No 
39,  ELI: 
and  Decision  No 
45/2001 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj). 
The text of the Protocol will be published together with the decision authorising the ratification. 

1247/2002/EC 

21.11.2018, 

(OJ  L 

295, 

p. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption. 

Article 2 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 
[...] 

EN 

11 

  EN