COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727
Date: 2026-06-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: Eurojust, cross-border cooperation, fight against crime, operation of the Institutions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.6.2026  SWD(2026) 572 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 {COM(2026) 570 final} - {SEC(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 570 final} - {SWD(2026) 571 final} - {SWD(2026) 573 final}  
 
 
1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended 

action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy 
initiative? 

The legal basis of the initiative is Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union  (TFEU).  Article  85(1)  TFEU  states  that  Eurojust's  mission  shall be  to  support  and 
strengthen  coordination  and  cooperation  between  national  investigating  and  prosecuting 
authorities in relation to serious crime affecting two or more Member States or requiring a 
prosecution on common bases, based on operations conducted and information supplied by 
the Member States' authorities and by Europol. 

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or 
supporting in nature? 

In the area of freedom, security and justice, the Union’s competence is shared (Article 4§2 
(j) TFEU). 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 21: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is  there  a  detailed  statement  with  qualitative  and,  where  possible,  quantitative 
indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union 
level? 

In the context of the evaluation of the Eurojust Regulation (EJR) and impact assessment, the 
Commission  conducted  numerous  consultation  activities,  including  public  and  targeted 
stakeholder consultations. The consultations were carried out as widely as possible to receive 
relevant input, evidence and explanations of the needs of different categories of stakeholders. 
The  consultation  strategy  was  designed  to  ensure  that  the  supporting  study  captures  the 
perspectives of a broad range of stakeholders, both internal and external to Eurojust. These 
included  notably  Eurojust  staff,  national  desks,  national authorities and  practitioners, 
representatives of other EU agencies and bodies in the area of criminal justice, academics as 
well as representatives of international organisations. 

-  A  Call  for  Evidence was  launched  by  the  Commission  and  made  available  on  the 
“Have Your  Say”  website from  28  October  2025  until  3  December  2025,  with  42 
replies received. 

-  The Commission launched a public consultation in all 24 official EU languages. The 
consultation was questionnaire-based. The consultation period was twelve weeks (3 
December 2025 to 24 February 2026) with 20 replies received. 

-  An Online survey was conducted until 4 March 2026, targeting a range of stakeholder 
types,  including practitioners,  the  Eurojust  administration  and  national  desks,  and 
public 
countries 
were represented. Practitioners from EU Member States accounted for nearly half of 
all  responses  (48%),  making  them  the  most  prominent  stakeholder  group  in  this 

officials. 

non-EU 

Several 

and 

EU 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
 
survey, followed by members of the Eurojust administration. 429 replies have been 
received. 

- 

international  organisations. They 

-  115  Interviews with  stakeholders  have  been  carried  out.  These  interviews covered 
representatives of the Eurojust administration, national desks and liaison prosecutors, 
EU agencies and bodies, EU and third country national-level stakeholders (authorities 
and  practitioners),  and 
in-person 
consultation with Eurojust personnel during the site visit, as well as online interviews 
with a range of stakeholders. 
In addition, other consultations of experts and senior officials representing Members 
States  have  been  carried  out:  technical workshops  by  Eurojust  (vision  2035),  two 
meetings  of  the Consultative  forum of  the  Prosecutors  General  and  Directors  of 
Public Prosecutions of the EU Member States, working meeting with the Criminal 
Law Expert Group  (composed  of  practitioners  and  academics),  exchanges  with 
experts  and  representatives  of  Member  States  during  EU  Council’s  meetings 
organised  at  technical  and  political  levels  (COPEN  working  parties  and  JHA 
Councils). 

include 

The  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  includes  a  detailed  statement  with 
qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the 
action can best be achieved at Union level (see Chapter 3). 

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying 
the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the 
conformity with the principle of subsidiarity? 

Both documents accompanying the Commission’s legislative initiative, contain an adequate 
justification that this legislative imitative aimed at revising the current Eurojust regulation 
complies with the principle of subsidiarity as enshrined in Article 5(3) TFEU.  

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed 

action be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU 
action)? 

Eurojust is an EU Agency which has been set up to support national prosecutorial and judicial 
authorities  to  cooperate  in  cross-border  criminal  cases.  Given  the  very  nature  of  Eurojust 
being an EU agency, a revision of its mandate and functioning cannot be achieved by Member 
States  action  alone.  The  issues  addressed  by  the  revision  of  Eurojust  are  inherently 
transnational, as serious and organised crime increasingly operates across borders, exploits 
differences  between  national  legal  systems,  and  affects  all  Member  States.  Individual 
national authorities, while retaining core criminal justice competences, are limited in their 
ability  to  ensure  effective  multilateral  coordination,  interoperable  cooperation  tools,  and 
consistent information exchange across jurisdictions.  

Without  EU-level  action, 
judicial  cooperation  would  risk  fragmentation,  delays, 
inconsistencies in  evidence handling, and  weakened collective  capacity to  investigate and 
prosecute cross-border offences, thereby undermining the objectives of the Area of Freedom, 
Security  and  Justice  under  Article  67  TFEU.  The  growing  complexity,  scale,  and 
technological sophistication of cross-border criminal activity also place increasing pressure 
on national authorities, many of which lack sufficient resources or operational capacities to 
manage multinational investigations alone. Although national, regional, and local authorities 
across the EU differ in their legal traditions and judicial structures, a strengthened Eurojust 

2 

 
 
 
mandate  provides  a  neutral  and  overarching  European  framework  capable  of  reconciling 
these  differences  while  ensuring  coherent,  efficient,  and  effective  judicial  cooperation 
throughout  the  Union,  thus  enhancing  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  Union’s  justice  and 
security architecture. 

(a) Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems 

being tackled? Have these been quantified? 

Eurojust’s  functions  (coordination,  cooperation  facilitation,  and  operational  support)  are 
transnational by nature and cannot be performed effectively by any single Member State. Its 
Union-level  structure  allows  it  to  take  a  neutral  and  overarching  European  view  across 
jurisdictions,  facilitate  simultaneous  multilateral  cooperation,  and  ensure  that  no  Member 
State is disadvantaged. 

(b) Would  national  action  or  the  absence  of  the  EU  level  action  conflict  with  core 
objectives  of  the  Treaty2  or  significantly  damage  the  interests  of  other  Member 
States? 

The  objectives  pursued  by  the  revision  of  the  mandate  of  Eurojust  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved  by  Member  States  acting  alone  because  serious  cross-border  crime  inherently 
affects several jurisdictions simultaneously. If national authorities acted independently, this 
would risk fragmentation of judicial cooperation, inconsistencies in evidence handling, and 
delays in coordination, thereby undermining the objectives of the Treaties relating to the Area 
of Freedom, Security and Justice under Articles 67. The absence of EU-level action would 
also  negatively  affect  other  Member  States  by  weakening  the  collective  capacity  to 
investigate and prosecute organised crime and other transnational offences. 

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

While  Member  States  retain  important  competences  in  criminal  justice  and  judicial 
cooperation,  their  ability  to  enact  appropriate  measures  individually  is  limited.  National 
authorities  cannot  by  themselves  ensure  uniform  coordination  mechanisms,  interoperable 
judicial cooperation tools, or effective information exchange across the EU. Differences in 
legal  systems,  procedural  rules,  and  operational  capacities  create  structural  obstacles  that 
only an EU-level agency such as Eurojust can address through coordinated support, common 
operational frameworks, and centralised cooperation mechanisms. 

(d) How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) 

vary across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

The problem primarily manifests itself at the transnational level, as criminal networks operate 
across borders and exploit differences between national legal systems. At the national level, 
authorities  may  face  difficulties  in  obtaining  evidence,  coordinating  prosecutions,  or 
executing judicial requests involving several Member States. At the regional and local levels, 
prosecutors  and  law  enforcement  authorities  encounter  operational  burdens  linked  to 
increasingly  complex  cross-border  investigations.  Negative  external  factors  and  spill-over 
effects  are  significant  because  ineffective  action  in  one  Member  State  may  compromise 

2 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
 
investigations and prosecutions in others, thereby reducing the overall effectiveness of EU 
criminal justice cooperation. 

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

The problem is widespread across the EU rather than confined to a limited number of Member 
States. Cross-border crime affects all Member States to varying degrees, irrespective of their 
geographic location or legal tradition. The increasing digitalisation of crime, mobility within 
the Schengen area, and the transnational nature of organised criminal networks mean that 
even offences originating in one Member State frequently produce effects across the Union. 
Consequently,  all  Member  States  have  an  interest  in  strengthening  coordinated  judicial 
cooperation at EU level. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

Member States are increasingly overstretched in achieving the objectives of effective cross-
border  judicial  cooperation  on  their  own.  The  growing  volume,  complexity,  and 
technological  sophistication  of  cross-border  criminal  cases  place  substantial  pressure  on 
national  judicial  authorities,  a  trend  confirmed  by  Europol’s  reports  on  organised  crime. 
Individual  Member States may lack sufficient  resources, technical  capacities, or access  to 
timely  information  necessary  to  manage  complex  multinational  investigations  effectively. 
Strengthening  the  mandate  of  Eurojust  helps  alleviate  these  burdens  by  facilitating 
coordination, operational support, and information sharing at EU level. 

(g) How  do  the  views/preferred  courses  of  action  of  national,  regional  and  local 

authorities differ across the EU? 

The views and preferred approaches of national, regional, and local authorities differ across 
the EU due to variations in legal traditions, administrative structures, prosecutorial systems, 
and  operational  capacities.  Some  Member  States  favour  deeper  EU-level  integration  and 
stronger coordination mechanisms, while others  prioritise maintaining  national  procedural 
autonomy. Regional and local prosecutorial authorities may also differ in their operational 
needs  and  levels  of  experience  with  cross-border  cooperation.  An  EU-level  framework 
through Eurojust provides a common platform capable of reconciling these differences while 
ensuring coherent and effective judicial cooperation throughout the Union. 

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed 

action be better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action 
(EU added value)? 

By  pooling  expertise  and  information,  supporting  Joint  Investigation  Teams,  avoiding 
duplication and assisting less-resourced Member States, Eurojust creates economies of scale 
and  strengthens  the  fight  against  serious  transnational  crime.  Its  work  also  supports  the 
internal market by increasing legal certainty, reducing criminal loopholes across borders, and 
reinforcing  trust  for  citizens  and  businesses  operating  within  the  EU.  At  the  same  time, 
Eurojust does not replace national authorities nor reduces Member States’ competences but 
rather complements their work within national legal frameworks. The planned reform is also 
expected  to  improve  legal  clarity,  particularly  regarding  governance,  cooperation  with 
partners, and data protection rules. 

(a) Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

4 

 
 
The  EU  level  action  regarding  the  judicial  cooperation  between  competent  national 
authorities provides clear benefits. 

Eurojust represents a genuine EU-level added value: it creates efficiencies, pooling resources, 
information and expertise; enables and facilitates coherent, coordinated, cross-border action 
against serious crime; fosters mutual trust and legal cooperation; and by doing so, strengthens 
the rule-of-law foundations and trust that underpin the internal market and citizens’ mobility. 

Without Eurojust (or a similar EU-level mechanism), national efforts alone, even if bilateral 
cooperation exists and that European MLA tools (EAW, EIO, etc.) are very efficient, would 
struggle to respond effectively to the scale, complexity and transnational nature of serious 
organised  crime,  terrorism,  human  trafficking,  money-laundering,  cybercrime,  etc.  The 
speed, coordination, and institutional capacity that Eurojust provides are difficult to replicate 
through bilateral cooperation alone, especially across many Member States. 

(b) Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level 
(larger  benefits  per  unit  cost)?  Will  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  be 
improved? 

There are clear economies of scale and efficiency gains from having an executive agency like 
Eurojust  at  EU  level  rather  than  relying  solely  on  individual  national  systems  or  bilateral 
cooperation. Eurojust clearly contributes to the following actions: 

•  Pooling  information,  expertise  and  resources  by  bringing  together  national 
practitioners from all Member States in one institution. Eurojust concentrates know-
how, specialised skills and experience that no single national authority would have at 
scale.  This  reduces  duplication  and  ensures  that  cross-border  cases  benefit  from 
expert coordination and institutional memory rather than ad-hoc bilateral attempts. 
•  Faster and more efficient coordination for transnational crime, time and coordination 
matter. Eurojust’s structure allows rapid convening of coordination meetings, setting 
up JITs, steering “coordination centres” for cross-border operations, and facilitating 
swift execution of EAWs, EIOs or freezing orders. 

•  Avoiding  duplication  and  conflicting  investigations.  When  several  Member  States 
would independently investigate overlapping cross-border crimes, Eurojust can help 
avoid  multiple,  overlapping,  inefficient  investigations  which  would  waste  public 
resources. Instead, it helps coordinate a single, coherent cross-border investigation or 
prosecution. 

•  Support  for  states  with  fewer  resources.  Indeed,  for  Member  States  with  limited 
capacity, handling complex transnational crime can be resource-intensive: Eurojust 
provides operational, technical and financial support levelling the playing field and 
ensuring that all states, large or small, can effectively participate in cross-border crime 
prosecution.  

In addition, Eurojust contributes to the functioning of the internal market and EU as a whole. 
By strengthening trust, ensuring consistent enforcement of  criminal law, and reducing the 
risk  of  cross-border  criminal  exploitation  of  jurisdictional  fragmentation,  Eurojust  helps 
underpin the internal market and general rule-of-law foundations that economic integration 
depends on. Eurojust plays a non negligeable role in the following actions: 

•  The reduction of “safe havens” for criminals. Serious and cross-border crimes can 
undermine  trust  in  the  internal  market,  distort  competition,  damage  legitimate 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
businesses,  and  discourage  cross-border  economic  activity.  By  enabling  efficient 
cross-border prosecution, Eurojust helps close loopholes that criminals could exploit 
across borders. This reinforces a level playing field for businesses across the EU. 
•  The building of confidence for individuals and businesses to operate across borders. 
A predictable, efficient and fair criminal-justice cooperation system strengthens trust 
for citizens, in terms of rights protection, for suspects and victims alike, but also for 
businesses  and  cross-border  economic  actors  (it  fosters  cross-border  trade  and 
investment). This supports the deeper integration of the internal market. 

•  The facilitation of judicial cooperation for crimes affecting EU financial interests or 
cross-border  economic  crime.  Some  of  the  crimes  Eurojust  handles  (e.g.,  money-
laundering,  fraud,  drug  trafficking,  cybercrime)  often  have  direct  or  indirect 
economic  consequences  (asset  seizures,  disrupted  supply  chains,  reputational 
damage). Efficient cross-border prosecution helps preserve the integrity of the market 
and protect citizens/businesses from being victims. 

•  The  facilitation  of  movement  and  social/economic  integration.  As  noted  in  EU 
strategy on criminal justice, when judiciaries across Member States trust each other 
and share minimal common standards, “people are more likely to use their right to 
live, work or study in another EU country.” In that sense, a strong EU-level judicial 
cooperation mechanism supports the broader internal market not only in economic 
trade but also mobility and labour market integration. 

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

The Eurojust’s action does not replace different national authorities. It does not substitute the 
work of national judicial authorities: it enhances this work. EU-level action and the services 
provided by Eurojust support and reinforce the work of national judicial authorities (public 
prosecutors offices and, depending on national systems, investigation judges), helping them 
to  prosecute  cross-border  crimes  and  to  conduct  related  criminal  proceedings,  such  as 
proceedings for asset recovery, more effectively.  

(d) Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member 
States and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting 
at national, regional and local levels)? 

There is no loss of competence of the Member States or local authorities: they will retain all 
their  powers,  as  Eurojust  will  support  their  actions  within  the  framework  of  national 
procedures. Furthermore, each Member State will be represented twice within the agency: at 
the  operational  level  through  the  national  desks,  and  at  the  managerial  level  through  the 
Management Board. 

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

One of the objectives of the revision is precisely to clarify the agency’s governance system, 
and in particular the relationships between its decision-making bodies. Another focus of the 
reform is to improve relations between the agency and its European and other partners, which 
will  also  promote  legal  certainty.  The  legal  framework  applicable  to  data  protection  and 
processing will also be clarified. 

3. Proportionality: How the EU should act 

6 

 
 
3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying 

the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the 
proportionality of the proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the 
compliance of the proposal with the principle of proportionality? 

The assessment of measures and options followed a four-step process (construct baseline, 
compile wide range of alternative policy options, identify most viable, describe key aspects 
of  retained  ones).  The  choice  of  the  preferred  option  is  compliant  with  the  principle  of 
proportionality laid down in Article 5(4) TEU. In this regard, the EU action will not exceed 
what is necessary to achieve legitimate interests. 

The rationale has been developed according to the degree of intensity of the measure and by 
topic (specific objective and area of intervention). The assessment of the measures and policy 
options is based on a mixed methods approach in which their effectiveness, efficiency and 
coherence  are  graded  using  a  scoring  system  that  reflects  the  available  data  and  its 
acknowledged  limitations.  The  measures  selected  for  further  analysis  in  the  impact 
assessment were the most proportionate and feasible (legally and politically). 

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any 

impact assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the 
proposed action an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The initiative is justified at Union level because Member States cannot effectively address 
the growing complexity of serious cross-border crime on their own, making coordinated EU 
action  through  Eurojust  indispensable.  In  line  with  Article  85  TFEU,  a  regulation  is 
considered  the  most  appropriate  and  coherent  legal  instrument  to  strengthen  Eurojust’s 
structure, governance, operational tasks, and cooperation mechanisms, since non-legislative 
measures  would  not  adequately  resolve  the  identified  shortcomings.  While  the  regulation 
leaves limited room for national implementation, it still allows flexibility for Member States 
in areas such as the allocation of powers to National Members and the granting of additional 
competences  under  national  law.  Although  the  reform  entails  additional  financial  and 
administrative  costs,  these  are  viewed  as  proportionate  and  necessary  given  Eurojust’s 
expanding responsibilities, expected efficiency gains, and the broader objective of reducing 
the significant economic and social costs of crime across the EU. 

(a) Is  the  initiative  limited  to  those  aspects  that  Member  States  cannot  achieve 

satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union can do better? 

Yes.  The  scale  and  effects  of  cross-border  crime  investigations  make  Union-level 
coordination indispensable. As the EU agency supporting and improving the coordination 
and  cooperation  between  national  investigating  and  prosecuting  authorities,  Eurojust  is  a 
strong expression of this. There is a need for EU action to step up the support to Member 
States  in  fighting  serious  and  cross-border  crime  to  keep  pace  with  these  threats.  Indeed, 
Member States alone would not be able to effectively tackle the new operational issues and 
criminal threats identified in the evaluation study and the impact assessment. 

(b) Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 
coherent  with  the  satisfactory  achievement  of,  and  ensuring  compliance  with  the 
objectives  pursued  (e.g.  choice  between  regulation,  (framework)  directive, 
recommendation, or alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

7 

 
 
 
The choice of the instrument is guided by the legal basis, Article 85 TFEU stating that the 
European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with 
the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  shall  determine  Eurojust's  structure,  operation,  field  of 
action and tasks. 

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while 
achieving satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European 
action to minimum standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

One option discarded at an early stage was to adopt only non-legislative measures to address 
the  identified  problems.  The  effects  of  an  absence  of  legislative  measures  have  been 
considered in the baseline scenario described in the impact assessment. A legislative initiative 
(a regulation) is the only means to address the problems identified in the functioning and the 
governance of Eurojust as for the need to improve the tasks and operational competences of 
the agency. 

(d) Does  the  initiative  create  financial  or  administrative  cost  for  the  Union,  national 
governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these 
costs commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

Eurojust is a decentralised agency mainly financed by the EU budget. Possibilities for internal 
redeployment within Eurojust to cover part of the new tasks have been seriously explored 
and pursued to the extent feasible. 

•  The reform is expected to generate certain efficiency gains. In particular, relieving 
National Members from  administrative burden and refocusing them on operational 
casework should allow National Desks to devote more resources to cases and requests 
from Member States, rather than supporting lengthy administrative discussions within 
the College.  

•  Enhanced cooperation with partners is also expected to reduce the number of FTEs 
currently  devoted  to  follow-up  activities  linked  to  information  exchange,  thereby 
freeing additional operational capacity.  

•  Nevertheless, additional resources are required to fulfil the Agency’s new tasks. The 
figures  currently  reflected  in  the  draft  Impact  Assessment  are  already  net  of  the 
estimated efficiency gains. These numbers are proportionate and correspond to the 
operational needs of the reformed agency.  

•  This should also be seen against the background of the current resource situation at 
Eurojust,  where  resources  are  already  significantly  stretched  and  several 
reprioritisation  exercises  have  taken  place  in  recent  years.  Eurojust  has  repeatedly 
indicated that, without reinforcements, it may soon be required to scale back certain 
core activities. 

The  preferred option is  expected  to  enhance  the  ability  of  national  judicial  authorities  to 
successfully  prosecute  cross-border  organised  crime,  including  large  criminal  enterprises, 
particularly those with a third country dimension. This improvement acts  as a deterrent to 
future  criminal  activity,  increases  legal  certainty,  and  reduces  crime  levels,  thus 
ultimately benefiting citizens and businesses alike. Given the size of the cost of crime in the 
EU (approximately EUR 200 billion per annum), even a small contribution from the Agency 
to the reduction of crime is expected to be high in monetary terms. To illustrate this, should 

8 

 
 
the proposed improvements to Eurojust contribute to addressing a mere 0.05%, this would 
result overall in a EUR 100 million reduction to the cost of crime. 

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual 

Member States been taken into account? 

The  legislative  tool  will  be  a  regulation,  without  margin  for  manoeuvre  concerning  its 
implementation  (there  is  no  transposition).  Nevertheless,  the  implementation  of  some 
provisions will leave some flexibility to Members States. 

For  instance,  despite  the  reinforcement  of  the  eligibility  criteria  for  appointing  College’s 
National Members, if, under national law, the powers of National Members are conferred 
upon another competent national authority, the National Member may request that authority 
to  issue  or  execute  the  measure  concerned.  In  addition,  Member  States  will  have  the 
possibility to grant additional powers to National Members for the purpose of exercising their 
tasks (in this hypothesis these Member States shall notify it the Commission and the College). 

9