COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 and Regulation (EU) 2024/982, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2016/794
Date: 2026-06-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: Europol, fight against crime, operation of the Institutions, police cooperation, terrorism

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.6.2026  SWD(2026) 581 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT    Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 and Regulation (EU) 2024/982, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2016/794    {COM(2026) 580 final} - {SEC(2026) 580 final} - {SWD(2026) 580 final} - {SWD(2026) 582 final}  
 
 
 
A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 

The European Union (EU) is facing a profound transformation in its security environment, as 
serious  crime  and  terrorism  grow  more  transnational,  technologically  advanced,  and 
interconnected.  Criminal  networks  operate  through  flexible  cross-border  ecosystems  that 
combine digital infrastructures, illicit financial flows, logistical networks and online services. 
Criminal activities are now often designed, coordinated and scaled transnationally from  the 
start, effectively making crime a cross-border issue by default. 

Rapid  technological  advances  have  accelerated  this  shift.  Encrypted  communications, 
automation tools and cryptocurrencies are no longer simply enablers of criminal activity but 
core  operational  assets  of  modern  criminal  networks.  Combined  with  digital  platforms  and 
online infrastructures, they allow criminals to coordinate operations in real time, scale illicit 
activities with unprecedented speed, conceal financial flows, rapidly adapt operational models 
and  exploit  weaknesses  across  jurisdictions.  At  the  same  time,  the  boundaries  between 
cybercrime, financial crime and other forms of serious and organised crime are increasingly 
blurring. 

Europol is today a force multiplier for European security, reflecting a shift from cooperation 
as an option to cooperation as a necessity. This level of integration, once unimaginable, has 
been  enabled  through  successive  legal  reinforcements1,  building  on  Member  States’ 
willingness  to  pool  expertise  and  capabilities  to  step  up  the  fight  against  serious  crime  and 
terrorism. In doing so, it gives practical effect to the Treaties’ objective of ensuring a high level 
of security for the EU and its citizens in an area without internal frontiers2. As its mandate and 
tools have evolved, Europol has become a central pillar of a more integrated and operational 
European security architecture.  

Despite  its  strengthened  mandate,  Europol  is  not  fully  equipped  to  fulfil  its  mission  in  this 
evolving environment. As highlighted in the Commission report pursuant to Article 68(3) of 
the Europol Regulation3 and in the evaluation of Europol4, the Agency faces legal, operational, 
and structural constraints that limit its ability to provide timely, comprehensive, and actionable 
support to Member States. Persistent information gaps hinder the development of a complete 
criminal  intelligence  picture  of  cross-border  threats.  Uneven  and  fragmented  operational 
cooperation and coordination with Member States limit the added value of Europol’s support 
for  the  action  of  national  authorities  on  the  ground.  Limitations  in  technical  capabilities, 
specialised expertise, and preparedness reduce the ability to respond effectively to increasingly 
sophisticated and technologically enabled criminal activity. Together, these constraints reduce 
Europol’s operational effectiveness and its capacity to deliver its full added value.  

Two main problems have been identified: 

•  Europol  and national  authorities face persistent  information  gaps when investigating 

cross-border crimes and identifying threats. 

1 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 was amended in 2022 by Regulation (EU) 2022/991 to address new security threats 
and in 2025 by Regulation (EU) 2025/2611 to effectively counter migrant smuggling. 
2 Article 88 TFEU defines Europol’s mission to support and strengthen cooperation between Member States’ law 
enforcement authorities in preventing and combating serious cross-border crime and terrorism. 
3 COM(2025) 752 final. 
4 See Annex 7.  

1 

 
 
 
•  Europol’s operational support remains limited and fragmented. 

Objectives: What should be achieved? 

The  general  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  EU-level  law 
enforcement  cooperation  in  preventing  and  combating  serious  and  organised  crime  and 
terrorism, in order to contribute to a high level of internal security in the EU.  

Specifically, the initiative aims to: 

•  Reinforce Europol’s role as an information hub for law enforcement. 
•  Strengthening Europol’s capacity to support law enforcement operational action 

What is the added value of action at EU level (subsidiarity)?  

Europol plays a unique and indispensable role in supporting Member States in preventing and 
combating serious crime and terrorism, in particular where these threats have a cross-border 
dimension.  Through  its  criminal  intelligence  analysis,  operational  and  technical  support  to 
investigations,  coordination  of  cross-border  law  enforcement  actions,  and  support  to  joint 
investigation  teams,  Europol  expands  the  reach,  speed,  and  effectiveness  of  national 
investigations. It enables authorities to detect connections between criminal activities across 
multiple Member States, identify priority targets, and coordinate operational responses, thereby 
significantly strengthening the Union’s collective ability to disrupt criminal networks. 

Europol also provides specialised capabilities, expertise, and technological infrastructure that 
individual  Member  States  could  not  develop  or  maintain  efficiently  on  their  own.  By 
centralising high-value expertise, tools, and infrastructure at Union level, Europol generates 
substantial  economies  of  scale,  reduces  duplication  of  investment,  and  ensures  that  all 
Member  States  benefit  from  cutting-edge  capabilities,  regardless  of  their  size  or  national 
resources. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option? 

Two main policy options were considered.  

The first option focuses on targeted improvements to the existing operational model, which 
would  strengthen  Europol’s  support  to  Member  State  investigations.  This  would  include 
improving  data  availability,  timeliness  and  operational  use.  Key  measures  include  targeted 
data-sharing  obligations  in  priority  crime  areas,  mandatory  deployment  of  automated  data-
loader  tools,  and  major  upgrades  to  Europol’s  ICT  systems  to  enhance  automation, 
interoperability  and  analytical  capabilities.  Europol  would  also  provide  technical  support, 
common standards and training to ensure operational benefits for Member States. Under this 
approach, measures  would  also improve the implementation of Data Subject  Categorisation 
(DSC) without changing the legal framework, notably through advanced analytical tools and 
updated procedures. This first option would also enhance cooperation with Union bodies and 
agencies. In particular, it would enhance Europol’s analytical support to EPPO investigations 
through dedicated expertise and closer coordination, improve the Europol-Eurojust operational 
continuum through more automated information-sharing and specialised support for accessing 
electronic evidence, and enable structured exchanges with AMLA via a hit/no-hit system to 
better identify links between financial intelligence and serious organised crime. At the same 
time, the second option would integrate Europol’s analytical capabilities directly into national 

2 

 
 
investigations by connecting national case management systems with Europol’s databases and 
tools.  

The second approach envisaged a more structural evolution of Europol’s operational model. 
It aimed to move beyond a framework centred primarily on bilateral information transmission 
towards the development of shared Union-level communication infrastructures, notably the EU 
Police  Shared  Data  Space.  This  approach  would  also  simplify  Data  Subject  Categorisation 
(DSC)  by  aligning  the  Europol  Regulation  with  the  EUDPR  and  the  Law  Enforcement 
Directive.  Instead  of  requiring  categorisation  before  all  data  processing,  DSC  would  apply 
where relevant and possible due to the nature of the data. This would  improve Europol’s ability 
to process large and complex datasets, while maintaining strong data protection oversight by 
the  EDPS.  This  approach  also  provides  for  a  more  integrated  form  of  operational  support 
embedded  directly  within  national  investigative  environments,  including  through  the 
establishment  of  Europol  Support  Offices  in  Member  States.  In  addition,  this  option  also 
includes reinforced cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office from a request-
based model into a systematic and structured partnership. 

On this basis, the preferred option combines elements of both approaches. It builds on the 
incremental  improvements  identified  under  the  first  approach,  in  particular  as  regards 
strengthening data availability, upgrading systems and embedding Europol tools into national 
investigations. At the same time, it goes beyond the existing model where necessary to address 
structural  limitations,  notably  by  enabling  authorised  access  to  national  data,  reinforcing 
Europol’s operational presence in Member States, and strengthening its cooperation with the 
European Public Prosecutor’s Office. These measures are designed to be mutually reinforcing. 
In particular, the incremental improvements under the first approach create the conditions for 
the more advanced measures to operate effectively, ensuring that enhanced data availability, 
systems and workflows support the use of new operational capabilities at Union level. 

C. Impact of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise the main ones)? 

reducing 

information 

The preferred option is expected to significantly improve the effectiveness of cross-border law 
the 
enforcement  cooperation  by 
identification  of  operational  links  across  investigations,  and  strengthening  operational 
coordination between EU bodies and agencies. It is also expected to improve the capacity of 
national authorities to investigate increasingly digital, cross-border, and data-intensive forms 
of  crime  through  enhanced  analytical  support,  shared  technological  capabilities,  and  more 
integrated operational support structures. Citizens are expected to benefit through strengthened 
internal  security  and  more  effective  prevention  and  investigation  of  serious  and  organised 
crime and terrorism. 

fragmentation,  accelerating 

The preferred option requires significant investments at both Union and Member State level, 
notably for the development of shared technological infrastructures, interoperability solutions, 
operational  integration  measures,  and  enhanced  analytical  and  operational  capabilities. 
Estimated  one-off  costs  amount  to  approximately  EUR  255  million  for  Member  States  and 
EUR 240 million for Europol, while annual recurring costs are estimated at approximately EUR 
48 million for Member States and EUR 78 million for Europol. Total estimated costs over the 
2028-2034 period amount to approximately EUR 590 million for Member States and EUR 789 
million  for  Europol.  At  the  same  time,  the  use  of  shared  Union-level  infrastructures  and 
capabilities is expected to generate important efficiencies and economies of scale, including 

3 

 
 
estimated  savings  of  approximately  EUR  42  million  compared  to  separate  implementation 
approaches 

The interferences with the rights to privacy and protection of personal data resulting from the 
preferred option remain necessary and proportionate having regard to the objective of ensuring 
effective  prevention  and  combating  of  serious  and  organised  crime  and  terrorism  in  an 
increasingly  digital  and  cross-border  operational  environment.  The  impact  assessment 
concluded that the current framework no longer adequately reflects the operational realities of 
modern criminal  intelligence and creates structural  limitations affecting Europol’s ability to 
support Member States effectively. At the same time, the proposal substantially strengthens 
and  restructures  the  safeguards  framework  applicable  to  Europol’s  processing  activities.  In 
particular, it introduces  a more detailed legal and technical  framework governing Europol’s 
data  environments,  processing  regimes,  access  conditions,  separation  of  processing 
environments,  logging  and  traceability  requirements,  storage  periods,  and  supervisory  and 
oversight mechanism. 

4