Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and repealing Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA
Date: 2026-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice

Public Consultation: Law Enforcement 
Cooperation – New Europol Regulation 
(Proposal) 

Factual Summary Report 

European Commission  

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

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

2.  PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS............................................................................................ 1 

3.  RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ................................................................................ 2 

Public Consultation Part I: Evaluation of the Regulation ....................................................... 2 

Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 2 

Efficiency........................................................................................................................ 2 

Relevance....................................................................................................................... 3 

Coherence...................................................................................................................... 3 

EU Added Value .............................................................................................................. 4 

Fundamental rights and freedoms ................................................................................... 4 

Preparedness and security .............................................................................................. 4 

Public Consultation Part II: Problems and Objectives .......................................................... 4 

Key developments and trends ......................................................................................... 4 

Implementation challenges and pathways for revision ..................................................... 5 

4.  CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................... 5 

 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  public  consultation  aimed  to  gather  insights  on:  (i)  the  implementation  of  the  Europol 
Regulation, focusing specifically on its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, EU added 
value and impact; (ii) existing needs and gaps; (iii) quantitative and qualitative inputs to support 
the Commission in identifying possible policy measures to support Member States; and (iv) the 
effectiveness and operational functioning of existing EU tools and bodies. 

The  public  consultation  was  published  in  all  24  official  EU  languages  on  the  European 
Commission’s website for 12 weeks from 23 October 2025 to 15 January 2026. The consultation 
received 33 valid replies.1 No campaigns were identified.2 Eight position papers were submitted.3 

Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions made by stakeholders responding to the public 
consultation on the New Europol Regulation. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission or its services. 
Responses to the consultation activities cannot be considered as a representative sample of the views of the EU population. 

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS 

Public  authorities  were  the  largest  group  of  respondents  (39%,  n=13  of  33),  followed  by  EU 
citizens (18%, n=6 of 33)4 and NGOs (12%, n=4 of 33). Companies/businesses accounted for 9% 
(n=3 of 33), while consumer organisations and business associations each represented 3% (n=1 
of  33). A further  15%  identified as “other”  (n=5  of 33).  Italy  was the  most represented country 
(24%, n=8 of 33), followed by Belgium (15%, n=5 of 33), Germany (12%, n=4 of 33), and Ireland 
(9%,  n=3  of  33).  France,  the  United  Kingdom,  and  the  Netherlands  each  accounted  for  6%  of 
respondents  (n=2  of  33),  while  Spain,  Croatia,  Latvia,  Cyprus,  Norway,  Switzerland,  and  the 
United States each represented 3% of respondents (n=1 of 33). 

I am giving my contribution as (n=33) 

Country of origin (n=33) 

Large organisations constituted the majority of respondents (67%, n=18 of 27), followed by small 
organisations  (15%,  n=4  of  27)  and  micro-organisations  (11%,  n=3  of  27).5  Among  the 
respondents who reported their scope of work, most operate at the international (46%, n=6 of 13) 
or national level (31%, n=4 of 13). A large majority of respondents reported familiarity with Europol 
and its legal framework,6 with 52% indicating familiarity (n=16 of 31) and 39% indicating detailed 
knowledge (n=12 of 31). Only 10% reported limited knowledge (n=3 of 31). 

1 Of the 34 contributions initially received, one was assessed as invalid and therefore excluded from the analysis. 
2 Identical answers were submitted by two different organisations in relation to one question, but this did not impact 
the analysis. 
3 The position papers were authored by three NGOs, one EU citizen, one public authority, one business association, 
one company/business, and one stakeholder that identified as “other” without providing further details. 
4 This figure includes one respondent from the United Kingdom who self-identified as an EU citizen. 
5 For the purpose of this public consultation, organisations are classified by size as follows: micro (1-9 employees), 
small (10-49 employees), medium (50-249 employees), and large (250 or more employees). 
6 Europol is governed by Regulation (EU) 2016/794, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/991. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION 

The  questionnaire  comprised  59  questions  and  included  the  possibility  to  submit  supporting 
documents,  such  as  position  papers.  It  was  structured  in  two  parts:  (i)  the  evaluation  of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/794, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/991, and (ii) the assessment of 
the potential impacts of a revision of Europol’s mandate. 

Public Consultation Part I: Evaluation of the Regulation 

Effectiveness 

Respondents  generally  assessed  Europol’s  performance  under  the  current  Regulation 
positively,  highlighting  its  role  as  the  EU  criminal  information  hub  (67%,  n=10  of  15)  and  its 
cooperation  with  external  partners  (60%,  n=9  of  15).  By  contrast,  views  were  more  mixed 
regarding Europol’s support for research and innovation. 

To what extent do you agree that the Regulation has enabled Europol to achieve its objectives?  (n=33) 

Most  respondents  agreed  that  Europol  has  successfully  implemented  its  activities, 
particularly analytical functions such as threat assessments and situation reports (60%, n= 9 of 
15)  and  coordination  of  investigative  and  operational  actions  (57%,  n=  8  of  14).  By  contrast, 
greater  uncertainty  was  reported  regarding  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  with  the 
private sector (53%, n= 9 of 17) and the development of centres of expertise (38%, n= 6 of 16). 
While  most  respondents  were  unsure  of  how  external  factors  hinder  implementation,  legal 
factors were more frequently seen as an obstacle (36% to a high or very high extent; n=9 of 25). 

Operational  support  activities  such  as  Operational  Task  Forces  (44%,  n=11  of  25),  EMPACT 
engagement (40%, n=10 of 25), and Joint Action Days or analysis provision (each 32%, n=8 of 25) 
were viewed as highly effective. Uncertainty was higher for activities under the LEWP-Customs 
Action Plan (56%, n=14 of 25), as well as expert deployment, participation in Joint Investigation 
Teams, and operational support in data retrieval and extraction (32-40%, n=8-10 of 25). 

Efficiency 

Respondents  expressed  mixed  views  on  whether  Europol’s  budget  delivered  commensurate 
benefits: 46% (n=11 of 24) viewed resources as proportionate, 42% (n=10 of 24) were uncertain, 
and 12% (n=3 of 24) disagreed. Human resources (42%, n=10 of 24) and IT resources (38%, n=9 
of 24) were identified as the most critical enablers of Europol’s support capacity, as compared 
to financial and other resources. 

2 

 
 
Relevance 

Most respondents considered Europol’s objectives and activities highly relevant (50%, n=13 of 
26)  or  relevant  (31%,  n=8  of  26)  to  EU  policy  developments  and  priorities  in  law  enforcement 
cooperation  and  security,  including  ProtectEU.  Its  focus  on  crime  areas  was  also  seen  as 
broadly  reflecting  EU priorities,  particularly  drug  trafficking  (61%,  n=14  of  23),  (child)  sexual 
abuse and exploitation (58%, n=14 of 24), computer crime (52%, n=12 of 23), and terrorism (50%, 
n=12 of 24). 

In your opinion, to what extent has the focus of Europol on the listed crime areas been (and continues to 
be) a priority for the EU?  (n=33) 

Most  respondents  either  opposed  expanding  Europol’s  focus  to  additional  crime  areas  and 
security threats (38%, n=9 of 24) or were unsure (33%, n=8 of 24). Overall, satisfaction was high 
or  very  high  for  Europol’s  operational  investigative  support  (63%,  n=15  of  24)  and 
technological  expertise  (52%,  n=  13  of  25)  in  digital  forensic,  AI-based  data  analysis,  and 
biometrics. 

Coherence 

Respondents generally viewed Europol’s objectives and activities as coherent with EU policy 
developments and priorities, particularly in law enforcement cooperation and internal security, 
including ProtectEU (68% high to very high coherence; n=17 of 25). Coherence was also assessed 
from high to very high for information exchange7 (59%, n=14 of 24), online crime8 (64%, n=16 of 
25), and international policy developments and EU external action (60%, n=14 of 23). However, 
uncertainty remained relatively high across all areas, especially for newer frameworks such 
as Prüm (46%, n=11 of 24), Terrorist Content Online Regulation (52%, n=13 of 25), personal data 
protection9 (42%, n=10 of 24), and other EU legal instruments regulating information exchange 
(88%, n=14 of 16) or online crime (87%, n=13 of 15). Only a small minority reported limited or no 
coherence, most notably for the DSA (8%, n=2 of 25) and personal data protection (8%, n=2 of 
24). 

Most respondents considered Europol’s framework for cooperation with third countries and 
international organisations effective (59% high or very high; n=14 of 24), though 33% (n=8 of 24) 
were  uncertain.  Alignment  with  EU  institutions,  agencies,  bodies,  and  law  enforcement 
networks or initiatives was generally rated from moderated to high – strongest for the European 

7 New Directive (EU) 2023/97 on the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities of Member States.  
8 Including the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). 
9 Including the EUDPR (Regulation (EU) 2018/1725). 

3 

 
 
 
Commission  and  Eurojust  (each  43%,  n=10  of  23),  followed  by  CEPOL  and  the  EU  Centre  to 
Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse (each 35%, n=8 of 23). Uncertainty was widespread for 
other EU agencies as well as networks and centres, including EUAA (76%, n=16 of 21), Eurofisc 
(73%, n=16 of 22), EUIPO and ELA (each 68%, n=15 of 22), eu-LISA and MAOC-N (each 64%, n=14 
of 22), and ENISA (61%, n=14 of 23). 

Respondents  considered  coherence  with  multidisciplinary  cooperation  under  the  EMPACT 
framework as high (61%, n=14 of 23) or coherent (17%, n=4 of 23), with limited uncertainty (22%, 
n=5  of  23).  Coherence  with  other  initiatives  led  by  the  EU,  Member  States,  or  international 
partners received limited substantive assessment, with very high uncertainty (79-86%) and very 
few high-coherence ratings (≤8%). Europol’s cooperation with third-country law enforcement 
authorities and INTERPOL was generally viewed positively – 54% (n=12 of 22) 50% (n=12 of 24), 
respectively – though around one third expressed uncertainty in both cases. 

EU Added Value 

Most respondents rated Europol’s added value positively (95%, n=23 of 24) and over half reported 
observing positive changes attributable to the Regulation (57%, n=12 of 21). In the absence of 
Europol,  respondents  considered  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  conduct  comparable 
investigations and information exchanges only to a limited (48%, n=11 of 23) or to a very limited 
extent (30%, n=7 of 23). 

Fundamental rights and freedoms 

Respondents’  views  on  the  Europol  regulatory  framework’s  capacity  to  safeguard 
fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  showed  high  uncertainty  (45%,  15  out  of  33).  Europol’s 
capacity  to  ensure  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  before  a  competent  court  received 
comparatively more positive ratings (47%, n=7 of 15), while with respect to other fundamental 
rights and freedoms respondents showed high uncertainty levels (82%, n=9 of 11). 

Preparedness and security 

Assessments  of  Europol’s  capacity  to  withstand  external  shocks  also  showed  high 
uncertainty,  though  preparedness  for  hybrid  threats  and  health  emergencies  received 
comparatively  more  positive  ratings  (each  25%,  n=5  of  20).  Similarly,  most  respondents  were 
uncertain  about  the  alignment  of  Europol’s  internal  cybersecurity  arrangements  with  the  EU 
Cybersecurity Regulation (64%, n=14 of 22), while around one third rated it positively (33%, n=7 
of 22). 

Public Consultation Part II: Problems and Objectives 

Key developments and trends 

Respondents identified a range of  constraints on Europol’s operational capacity to address 
evolving organised crime and terrorism threats, though views were often mixed and marked by 
a  high  level  of  uncertainty  –  particularly  regarding  the  digital  space,  information  sharing,  and 
victim  protection  and  assistance.  Legal  and  procedural  uncertainties  regarding  the  use  of 
administrative databases and the admissibility of e-evidence were seen as significant limitations 
(33%, n=7 of 21), followed by the absence of a common law enforcement culture among Member 
States (24%, n=5 of 21). 

The rapid evolution of digital technologies and criminal methods, alongside technological  and 
legal  disparities  across  Member  States,  were  most  often  cited  as  major  contributing  factors 
(50%, n=7 of 14 and 43%, n=6 of 14, respectively). In contrast, views divided regarding Europol’s 
task  definition,  technical  obstacles  to  operational  data  processing,  and  compliance  with 

4 

 
data-processing  legal  requirements,  with  25%  of  respondents  (n=3  of  12)  stating  they  do  not 
contribute at all. Views on administrative and governance structures were particularly polarised, 
combining high and very high ratings (43%, n=6 of 14) with a substantial share of very low ratings 
(36%, n=5 of 14). 

Implementation challenges and pathways for revision 

Respondents  generally  considered  that  the  current  Regulation  enables  Europol  to  broadly 
fulfil its mandate. Analytical activities were rated most positively (43%, n=10 of 23), followed by 
facilitating information exchange and operational support to Member States (each 39%, n=9 of 
23), and cooperation with other EU agencies, bodies, and law enforcement networks or initiatives 
(35%, n=8 of 23).  

Based on your experience and observations, to what extent does the current Regulation allow Europol to 
carry out its mandate, considering its full range of functions and operational responsibilities?  (n=33) 

Regarding the possibility to enhance the current framework, respondents provided their views on 
possible EU-level initiatives. They generally supported non-legislative measures to strengthen 
Europol’s  mandate,  particularly  enhancing  information  provision  by  Member  States  and 
increasing their participation in Europol activities (each 86%, n=19 of 22), followed by increased 
EU financial contributions and modernised working arrangements with other EU agencies and 
bodies (each 73%, n=16 of 22). 

Targeted  amendments  were  most  strongly  supported  where  they  aimed  to  simplify  legal 
provisions  and  add  best-practice-based  rules  (55%,  n=11  of  20)  or  to  introduce  new  legal 
provisions  addressing  major  technical  and  legal  obstacles  to  information  access,  collection, 
sharing, and analysis (45%, n=10 of 22). By contrast, measures concerning the simplification of 
administrative procedures, horizontal tasks, and HR rules (25%, n=5 of 20) and crime prevention 
or victim assistance (27%, n=6 of 22) attracted greater uncertainty. 

Views on a potential new mandate were overall positive, with strongest support for enhancing 
Europol’s technological and innovation capabilities (48%, n=11 of 23) and expanding its scope to 
include areas such as sabotage, hybrid threats, and information manipulation (39%, n=9 of 23). 
Opinions were more mixed on granting new operational powers to support Member States and on 
establishing  new  cooperation  frameworks,  while  revising  the  HR  model  (38%,  n=8  of  21)  and 
introducing  new  governance  and  political  oversight  rules  (48%,  n=10  of  21)  drew  the  highest 
uncertainty, indicating caution around structural changes. 

5 

 
 
3.  CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  suggest  that  the  Regulation  is  effective,  coherent,  and 
provides added value and identify possible areas for further improvement. These results will feed 
into  the  wider  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  of  the  Regulation.  While  this  document 
provides  a  summary  of  the  responses  received,  the  individual  responses  and  position  papers 
submitted provide further insight. 

6