COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT 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) 573 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT    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) 572 final}  
 
 
Cross-border judicial cooperation – Revision of Eurojust Regulation (impact assessment) 

Factual Summary Report 

Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions made by 
stakeholders in the open consultation on the revision of the Eurojust Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. 
It cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the European Commission or 
its  services.  Responses  to  the  consultation  activities  cannot  be  considered  as  a  representative 
sample of the views of the EU population. 

A. Objective and Methodology 

The objective of the public consultation was to obtain the views of citizens, Member States and other 
relevant stakeholders on Eurojust and the Eurojust Regulation, thereby contributing to the upcoming 
impact assessment of a possible revision of the Eurojust Regulation. Eurojust is the EU agency for 
criminal justice cooperation, supporting national authorities in combating serious cross-border crime 
by strengthening coordination between national authorities. The consultation followed an evaluation 
of Eurojust1, published on 2 July 2025, which had already pointed to some problems related to the 
agency and its legal framework. 

The public consultation took the form of an online survey, with a mix of closed and open questions. 
The questionnaire was published in all 24 EU official languages. Participants to the questionnaire could 
reply in any of these languages. Contributions were possible from 3 December 2025 to 24 February 
2026. 

Beyond an introductory part about the person of the respondent, the survey was composed of 10 closed 
questions  about  Eurojust  and  its  activities.  In  some  instances,  such  as  when  respondents  chose  the 
answer option “Other”, they were invited to elaborate further in free-text boxes.  

This report summarises the results of the open public consultation. 

B. Key findings 

The main points raised by the respondents in the survey were the following: 

• 

• 

It  found  that  almost  all  respondents  believed  Eurojust’s  role  in  addressing  serious  and 
organised cross-border crime in the EU to be important, 50% to be very important. 

Some  participants  stressed  the  need  to  better  consider  the  perspective  of  victims  and 
witnesses  and  to  clarify  case  allocation  between  Eurojust  and  the  European  Judicial 
Network (EJN).  

1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/evaluation-eurojust_en.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
• 

Criminal use of the digital space, AI and new technology was, almost unanimously, seen as 
one of the main challenges that criminal investigations and prosecutions in Europe will face in 
the coming years.  

C. Overview of Respondents 

20  stakeholders  responded  to  the  public  consultation.  Respondents  represented  the  following 
geographic distribution: 17 responses originated from 9 Member States. The largest shares came from 
Belgium  (4;  20%),  France  (4;  20%).  3  responses  were  submitted  from  outside  the  EU  (Bosnia 
Herzegovina, North Macedonia and the United States). 

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of respondents 

The highest proportion of responses were submitted by public authorities (8; 40%), followed by EU 
citizens  (4;  20%),  companies/businesses  (3;  15%),  non-EU  citizens  (2;  10%),  non-governmental 
organisation (NGO) (1; 5%), business association (1; 5%) and other (1; 5%). When asked about the 
size of organisation,  10  participants (50%) identified as large  (250  employees or more), 1 (5%)  as 
medium  (50  to  249  employees),  2  (10%)  as  small  (10  to  9  employees),  1  (5%)  as  micro  (1  to  9 
employees) and 6 (30%) did not provide an answer. 

D. Past Evaluation and Role of Eurojust 

When asked to self-assess their familiarity with Eurojust (Q1), respondents selected a value on a 
scale from 1 to 4, where: where 1 corresponds to ‘I have never heard of Eurojust’ and 4 corresponds 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
to  ‘I  have  in-depth  knowledge  of  Eurojust,  including  its  structure  and  Regulation’). A  majority  of 
respondents  (11;  55%)  reported  the  highest  level  of  familiarity  with  Eurojust  (level  4).  Another 
significant  group  (6;  30%)  indicated  a  level  of  knowledge  corresponding  to  the  second-highest 
category (level 3), while three respondents (15%) selected familiarity level 2. None of the participants 
chose level 1. 

Half of the respondents (10; 50%) considered Eurojust’s role in  addressing serious and organised 
cross-border crime within the EU to be ‘very important – Eurojust is essential in ensuring effective 
cross-border  judicial  cooperation’  (Q2). A  further  45%  (9  respondents)  viewed  it  as  important  – 
Eurojust  provides  clear  added  value  by  facilitating  coordination,  while  only  one  participant  (5%) 
selected no opinion/don’t know. The options Moderately important - Eurojust adds some value, but 
effective  national  coordination  would  largely  be  possible  without  it  and  Not  important  -  national 
authorities can coordinate effectively on their own without a specialised agency were not selected by 
the respondents. 

Respondents  were  asked  whether  they  agreed  with  the  findings  of  the  European  Commission’s 
evaluation of Eurojust2 (Q3), conducted to inform potential revisions to the Eurojust Regulation. 
The evaluation concluded that while Eurojust effectively supports EU Member States in combating 
crime, its operations could be more efficient. Key findings included: 

•  Eurojust does indeed support EU Member States in the fight against crime, but it could do so 

more efficiently. 

•  Eurojust’s scope of work is broad and not always clearly defined. The Agency often becomes 
involved  in  lower-complexity  cases  that  could  be  dealt  with  through  different  cooperation 
channels (bilateral cooperation or EJN). 

•  The Agency’s internal organisation and decision-making is complex, with an unclear division 

of responsibilities. This can result in slow procedures and duplication of work. 

•  Cooperation  with  other  EU  bodies  works  for  individual  cases,  but  coordination  at  a  more 

general level is still weak. 

•  The expansion of cooperation with non-EU countries is held back by lengthy and cumbersome 

procedures to conclude international agreements. 

When asked to select the response that best reflected their view, respondents replied as follows: 

•  12 (60%) agreed with the findings, 

•  5 (25%) partially agreed, 

•  0 (0%) disagreed, and 

•  3 (15%) selected no opinion/don’t know. 

If partially agreeing or disagreeing, participants were invited to explain which findings they disagree 
with or to add anything they consider missing. 

2 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/evaluation-eurojust_en. 

3 

 
 
 
Some of the issues raised there were: a preference towards cautious and fine-tuned revisions of the 
internal  decision-making  process,  more  attention  to  victims  and  witnesses  engaged  with  Eurojust, 
improved case allocation between Eurojust and the EJN and scepticism as to whether there is a need 
to improve cooperation/coordination with other EU bodies at the legislative level. 

E. Future Challenges and Prioritisation 

Participants of the consultation were asked which – in their view – would be the main challenges that 
criminal  investigations  and  prosecutions  in  Europe  will  face  in  the  upcoming  years  (Q4).  The 
respondents  could  choose  from  a  list  (Criminal  use  of  the  digital  space  (19  replies),  artificial 
intelligence and new technologies, Globalisation of organised crime networks (10 replies), Blurring 
of  the  lines  between  organised  crime  and  security  threats  (terrorism,  hybrid  threats)  (5  replies), 
Greater financial sophistication of criminal groups (cryptocurrencies, money laundering) (7 replies), 
Deeper infiltration of crime into legal economies and business structures (8 replies), Increase in the 
use of violence by organised crime groups (1 reply), Rising volume and complexity of cross-border 
cases) (7 replies), or provide their own suggestions if they clicked on ‘Other’ (1 reply). The replies can 
be visualised as follows: 

One respondent added “Cooperation between states” as other challenge.  

When asked, which areas of crimes should be prioritised by Eurojust (Q5), the following results were 
gathered. The complete list of options given was:  

Figure 2: Challenges. Responses in %. 

4 

 
 
 
 
Terrorism  (13  replies),  Organised  crime  (15  replies),  Drug  trafficking  and  illicit  trafficking  in 
hormonal  substances  and  growth  promoters  (7  replies),  Financial  crimes  (e.g.  fraud,  money 
laundering) and corruption (8 replies), Crimes involving nuclear or radioactive materials (2 replies), 
Migrant smuggling (2 replies), Trafficking in human beings and trade in human organs (8 replies), 
Violent crime (murder, bodily injury, kidnapping, hostage taking) (1 reply), Hate crime (racism and 
xenophobia), Property crime (robbery, aggravated theft, racketeering, extortion), Illicit trafficking in 
cultural goods (antiquities, works of art), Counterfeiting and forgery (1 reply), Cybercrime and hybrid 
attacks  (12  replies),  Arms  trafficking  (weapons,  ammunition,  explosives)  (1  reply),  Environmental 
crime (including trafficking in endangered species), Sexual abuse and exploitation (including child 
sexual  abuse  material)  (3  replies),  Genocide,  crimes  against  humanity  and  war  crimes  (3  replies), 
Other (3 replies), No answer (1 reply). 

Figure 3: Prioritisation of areas of crime.  Answers in %. 

When they chose “Other”, participants were invited to specify which area of crimes they had in mind. 
They replied with: Crimes against states, such as espionage; the implementation of fast online court 
orders;  the  prioritisation  of  the  forms  crimes  listed  in Annex  I  falls  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
College of Eurojust. 

The public consultation also asked about which of its tasks Eurojust should prioritise in order to fight 
serious and organised cross-border crime more effectively (Q5). The tasks listed were the following:  

Facilitating  and  coordinating  joint  investigation  teams  of  authorities  from  different  countries  (10 
replies),  Assisting  in  the  exchange  of  evidence  and  information  between  national  authorities  (7 
replies), Supporting the coordination of prosecutions in cases where multiple jurisdictions are involved 
(8  replies),  Providing  advice  to  national  authorities  in  complex  cross-border  cases  (5  replies), 
Developing and maintaining standard procedures and best practices for cross-border investigations 

5 

 
 
 
(6  replies),  Acting  as  a  central  hub  for  cross-border  case  analysis  and  trends  at  judicial  level  (5 
replies),  Strengthening  cooperation  with  non-EU  countries  and  international  organisations  to 
facilitate  global  cooperation  against  serious  and  organised  cross-border  crime  (8  replies), 
Strengthening cooperation with other EU agencies and bodies (e.g. Europol, the European Anti-Fraud 
Office  (OLAF)  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO),  Frontex)  (4  replies),  Storing, 
analysing and making available evidence of serious cross-border crime (1 reply), Other (1 reply), No 
answer (1 reply). 

Figure 4: Prioritisation of tasks. Answers in %. 

As other task, one respondent mentioned the systematic early-stage coordination in complex cross-
border investigations. 

The consultation also went one step further and asked about additional activities that Eurojust could 
carry out to improve its support to national authorities. A list was provided suggesting the following 
tasks, as well as allowing for additional suggestions under the category “Other”:  

Providing support to national prosecutors and judges in the use of new innovative tools, including the 
collection of digital evidence (11 replies), Hosting and supporting judicial networks, bringing together 
practitioners  working  in  specific  areas  (e.g.  the  European  Judicial  Organised  Crime  Network,  the 
Genocide  Prosecution  Network,  the  Network  of  National  Experts  on  Joint  Investigation  Teams)  (9 
replies),  Raising  awareness  among  the  public  and  stakeholders  about  cross-border  crime  and  EU 
judicial  cooperation  (6  replies),  Monitoring  and  reporting  on  the  effectiveness  of  cooperation  by 
national investigation and prosecution authorities in cross-border cases (3 replies), Providing training 
programmes for national prosecutors and investigators on cross-border legal and operational issues 
(7 replies), Operating a think tank or research unit, developing strategies and policies in the field of 
judicial cooperation (5 replies), Ensuring that victim protection and human rights considerations are 
taken into account during the coordination of prosecution in cross-border cases (4 replies), Acting as 
an  information  hub  on  procedural  matters  for  national  authorities  and  stakeholders  (6  replies) 
Improving outreach and visibility (3 replies), Other (1 reply). 

6 

 
 
 
Figure 5: Additional tasks. Answers in %. 

F. Proactiveness 

The survey also inquired whether the respondents thought that Eurojust should act more on its own 
initiative (“In your view, should Eurojust act more on its own initiative? Generally, Eurojust supports 
national authorities when they request its assistance. It may proactively coordinate cases, for instance 
by involving EU Member States that might have not been included in the case and by discovering links 
between cases based on information it receives from Europol, OLAF, EPPO and national authorities. 
However, it cannot require national authorities to open investigations, establish a joint investigation 
team, or transfer proceedings on its own initiative. (Please select the answer that best reflects your 
view”).  The  following  picture  evolved:  The  majority  of  respondents  were  in  favour  of  more 
proactive  role  of  Eurojust  (13  replies;  65%),  either  whenever  national  authorities  cannot  react 
promptly in urgent situation, or entirely on its own initiative. None of the respondents voted for the 
most restrictive option of Eurojust not acting unless requested by an EU Member State. 

7 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Own initiative of Eurojust. 

Asked about Eurojust’s role in supporting victims of crime (“Do you think Eurojust should have a 
specific role in supporting victims of crime? Currently, Eurojust supports victims of crime indirectly 
by assisting national authorities in the investigation and prosecution of cross-border crimes. However, 
the Eurojust Regulation does not provide it with specific competences regarding the protection and 
support  of  victims.  (Please  select  the  answer  that  best  reflects  your  view”).  Respondents  gave  the 
following answers:  

Figure 7: Role in supporting victims of crime. 

8 

 
 
 
 
G. Additional Feedback, Stakeholder Recommendations 

In  response  to  the  last  question  (Q10),  which  invited  respondents  to  provide  additional  comments, 
opinions, suggestions or further explanation of their earlier answers or proposals for change, several 
key themes emerged regarding Eurojust’s future role and operations: 

One respondent stressed that Eurojust should remain focused on coordinating and facilitating judicial 
cooperation, such as supporting joint investigation teams, rather than assuming executive powers like 
initiating  prosecutions,  and  called  for  adequate  financial  resources  to  strengthen  national  desks  by 
increasing seconded national experts. 

Another highlighted the need for special provisions to protect child victims, including child-friendly 
procedures,  legal  counselling,  and  psychosocial  support,  in  line  with  EU  and  Council  of  Europe 
guidelines. 

A  detailed  submission  argued  that  Eurojust’s  international  cooperation  is  hindered  by  the  lack  of 
adequacy decisions and cooperation agreements with non-EU countries, proposing a more flexible, 
risk-based approach to data exchange under the Law Enforcement Directive to better reflect criminal 
justice realities. 

One  respondent  cautioned  against  major  reforms,  advocating  instead  for  targeted  adjustments  to 
Eurojust’s  mandate,  while  another  stressed  the  importance  of  clearer  cooperation  frameworks  to 
benefit non-EU partners and strengthen institutional capacity. 

Additional  comments  included  the  suggestion  that  Eurojust  should  evolve  into  a  more  proactive, 
intelligence-led agency while respecting national sovereignty, and that it could play a critical role in 
implementing the e-Evidence Regulation through training and coordination. 

Finally, a respondent noted that Eurojust should remain an operational tool focused on its core mission 
of supporting Member States’ judicial authorities. 

9