EUROJUST

P.O. Box 16183

2500 BD The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS

The Hague, 30 March 2009

EUROJUST CONTRIBUTION TO THE

STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME

1. GENERAL REMARKS

1.1. Member States and their judicial authorities increasingly acknowledge Eurojust’s important
role as a coordination body in the fight against cross-border crime.

However, Eurojust still has unused potential, in particular for the coordination of serious
complex and multilateral cases that should be referred to Eurojust at an early stage of
investigation.

1.2 The encouraging results achieved within only seven years from Eurojust’s inception would be
further enhanced by raising awareness, at national level, of the EU dimension to crime and of
the need to tackle transnational criminality from an EU perspective.

1.3 On the basis of its contacts with practitioners, Eurojust considers that awareness at national
level of the European dimension to criminal justice would be greatly enhanced by:

• identifying problems to judicial co-operation and establishing priorities in criminal

justice at EU level,

• the development at EU level of structured, professional and properly resourced

training for practitioners in European and comparative law; and of well organised and
funded EU exchange programmes for prosecutors and examining magistrates amongst
Member States, in order to enhance mutual trust amongst national authorities of
different Member States, and

• the provision of adequate human, financial and technical resources to enable national
judicial systems to fight transnational crime successfully.

2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED EUROJUST DECISION

1
 EUROJUST
P.O. Box 16183
2500 BD The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS

2.1. THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

The adoption of the Decision on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision
2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against organised crime
by the Council of Ministers of the EU on 16 December 2008 is a major step forward.

In order to ensure the effective application of the revised Eurojust Decision, it will be
important to stimulate its correct and timely implementation by Eurojust and Member States,
to coordinate common national approaches where possible, and to harmonise implementation
at national level. In this respect, it is hoped that Members States and future Presidencies will
continue to actively support the Implementation Project developed by the current Trio of the
EU Presidency, the Council Secretariat and the Commission and the setting up of an Informal
Working Group composed of contact points for legislative issues and technical issues.

2.2. THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

The effectiveness of Eurojust and its capacity to support investigations and prosecutions are
largely dependent on the information it receives from the national authorities. The revised
Eurojust Decision should have an important impact on the quantity and type of information
which will allow Eurojust to fulfil its objectives in a more active way.

The opportunities in the revised Decision for information exchange between Eurojust and the
Member States will require implementation not only at legislative but also at technical and
organisational levels. Making best use of these opportunities involves setting up Eurojust
National Coordination Systems and ensuring that Eurojust receives information on criminal
investigations at an early stage, and in a structured way.

To improve information exchange for the purposes of police and judicial co-operation, agreed
standards for the security and technical structuring of the material exchanged will be
necessary. The same standards should apply both to the competent national and to the relevant
EU bodies. Eurojust offers its expertise and experience in promoting co-operation in this area.

Eurojust would in particular welcome and strongly support projects initiated within the
context of e-Justice. More generally, Eurojust would suggest that enhanced consideration be
given to the development of new technologies in the fight against crime, including the further
development and dissemination of EJN tools. Eurojust would be pleased to be associated with
the strengthening and development of e-Justice tools at the European level and to play an
active role in developing those tools wherever possible, e.g. in the use of videoconferencing.

2.3. THE EVALUATION PROCESS

2
 EUROJUST
P.O. Box 16183
2500 BD The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS

Eurojust considers the independent external evaluation of the implementation of the revised
Decision and of the activities carried out by Eurojust to be of great importance (see Article
41a of the revised Eurojust Decision)1.

In consequence, Eurojust would welcome initiatives aimed at defining an appropriate

mechanism to evaluate the implementation of the revised Decision. Eurojust would also
welcome devoting the sixth round of mutual evaluations to that topic2.

3. THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROJUST AND THE LISBON TREATY

3.1. The Lisbon Treaty provides for the strengthening of Eurojust’s role in the fight against cross-
border crime in the European Union, and includes the possibility, according to Article 85.1(a)
TFEU, that it be given the power to initiate criminal investigations, particularly those relating
to offences against the financial interests of the Union.

3.2. It is hoped that EU legislators will give proper consideration to Eurojust’s powers in co-
ordinating investigations and prosecutions (Article 85.1(b)) and to making decisions of the
Eurojust College of a more binding nature if needed, particularly in matters related to
conflicts of jurisdiction (Article 85.1 (c)).

Consideration should be given to establishing a resolution mechanism whereby Eurojust

could play a more significant role. In this respect, Eurojust would support the mandatory
referral to it of those cases where the national authorities have failed to reach an agreement on
the best placed jurisdiction.

3.3 Eurojust would welcome initiatives to involve national judicial authorities in the development
of the Internal Security Architecture. This involvement would provide EU policymakers with
a wider stakeholder input from which to define strategic guidelines for legislative and
operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice. The creation of a Forum
for EU Member States’ Prosecutors General and Directors of Prosecuting Authorities,
welcomed by the 2008 Eurojustice Conference, is to be considered as a positive development
in that respect. Similarly Eurojust would encourage the involvement of national judicial
authorities in the Eurojust contribution to Europol’s threat assessments on terrorism and
organised crime (the TE-SAT and OCTA reports), and also to Eurojust’s future contributions
to the COSI (Standing Committee on Internal Security – Article 71 TFEU). With a view to

1
Evaluation to be before five years after the date of taking effect of the new Council Decision, and every five years
thereafter.
2
Joint Action of 5 December 1997 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union,
establishing a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international
undertakings in the fight against organised crime (97/827/JHA). OJ L 344/7 of 15.12.97.
3
 EUROJUST
P.O. Box 16183
2500 BD The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS

facilitating co-ordination of Member States’ competent authorities, Eurojust would gladly

offer its assistance in the organisation of such a consultation process. (See also 5.2.5)

3.4 The involvement of the European Parliament and national Parliaments in the evaluation of the
activities of Eurojust (Article 85.1 TFEU in fine) provides a new basis for legitimacy and
accountability that will foster more effective and consistent action by Eurojust. Regular
reporting by the College of Eurojust to the European Parliament and by Eurojust National
Members to their national Parliaments is one proposal that could be considered as a means of
evaluating Eurojust.

4. THE CREATION OF A EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE FROM EUROJUST

4.1 Eurojust is willing to contribute constructively to the debate concerning the creation of a
European Public Prosecutor’s (EPP) Office from Eurojust. At the same time, Eurojust would
stress that the possibilities envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty of strengthening Eurojust as a
coordination body cannot be ignored.

4.2 Should Member States decide on the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office, after
taking into account the continuing work of Eurojust and improvements to cooperation with
OLAF, Eurojust will contribute its experience gained in the fight against European crime.

4.3 As the Lisbon Treaty provides that the EPPO is to develop “from Eurojust”, both the legal
framework and the practical experience of Eurojust should be taken into account in any
formulation. In particular, when defining the future relations between the EPP and Eurojust,
attention should be paid to their respective roles and powers and the need to optimise
resources and exploit synergies between them.

5. EUROPEAN INSTRUMENTS OF JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINAL LAW

5.1 LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES

5.1.1 Priority should be given to promoting the ratification by all Member States of the main
international cooperation instruments such as the European Convention on the Transfer of
Proceedings in Criminal Matters of 1972, the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal
Matters between the Member States of the EU of 2000 and its 2001 Protocol.

4
 EUROJUST
P.O. Box 16183
2500 BD The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS

5.1.2 Eurojust would strongly support both the adoption of an EU mechanism to prevent and
resolve conflicts of jurisdiction and the adoption of an EU instrument on the transfer of
proceedings in criminal matters.

5.1.3 In the field of Child Protection, Eurojust fully supports EU initiatives aimed at strengthening
judicial cooperation to combat pedophile criminal networks more effectively. The Eurojust
Contact Point for Child Protection aims at becoming a centre of expertise in judicial
cooperation in this particular field.

5.1.4 In the field of criminal records, Eurojust welcomes the Framework Decision on the
organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records
between Member States and the proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment of the
European Criminal Records Information System. These are useful tools in improving judicial
cooperation. Eurojust also supports any future initiative aiming at establishing an index of
third-country nationals convicted in the European Union.

5.1.5 Based on its operational experience, Eurojust is of the opinion that mutual recognition
represents an important step in the evolution of mutual assistance in the European Union.
Eurojust strongly supports efforts to implement the principle of mutual recognition in all
stages of criminal proceedings, while taking into account the specificities of each of them.
Based of its practical experience, Eurojust offers to contribute to future instruments on mutual
recognition.

5.2 IMPLEMENTATION, PRACTICAL APPLICATION AND EVALUATION OF LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

5.2.1 While Member States have made progress in the implementation and application of EU
legislation, a continuing problem is the uncertain transposition of the legal instruments
adopted. Eurojust considers that it would be important to underline the need for Member
States to comply with their implementing obligations within the time limits agreed and in a
correct manner. An enhanced exchange of information between Member States, the European
Commission and Eurojust would facilitate this process.

5.2.2 The establishment of a Network for legislative cooperation between the Ministries of Justice
of the European Union by Council Resolution of 20 December 2008 is a useful development
for increasing access to information on legislation in force, on judicial and legal systems, and
on major legal reform projects. Eurojust would gladly offer its assistance in the development
of the Network.

5.2.3 Furthermore, in order to promote the use of instruments on mutual recognition, it would be
desirable to make them more attractive for practitioners, for instance by streamlining the

5
 EUROJUST
P.O. Box 16183
2500 BD The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS

forms which form part of the instruments in line with practitioners’ needs. Eurojust would be
happy to contribute and provide its expertise in that respect.

5.2.4 On the basis of its experience on the practical application of the European Arrest Warrant,
Eurojust would suggest that consideration be given to the adoption at EU level of provisions,
guidelines or other measures aimed at ensuring a proportionate use of the issuing of an EAW
for the purpose of prosecution or execution.

5.2.5 As for the setting of priorities, Eurojust would emphasize the importance of involving
national judicial authorities, including contact points of the EJN, in the evaluation of the
implementation and application of relevant EU instruments in Member States, and in the
preparation of proposals for new EU legal instruments in their fields of competence. Eurojust
would be prepared to facilitate the evaluation process by practitioners of the implementation
and application of these instruments. (See also 3.3).

5.2.6 Concerning the evaluation of national implementation and application of legal instruments in
the field of judicial cooperation, Eurojust is eager to continue with its contributions to the
mutual evaluations of such instruments as an observer when invited. Additionally, it is
considered that mechanisms to ensure effective control and evaluation of national
implementation should be enhanced and the role to be played by Eurojust strengthened in that
respect.

6. RELATIONS WITH PARTNERS

6.1 Eurojust welcomes the revision of the co-operation agreement with Europol, aimed at
increasing and improving the exchange of information between the two bodies.

In the context of the Lisbon Treaty, consideration should be given to strengthening the powers
of Eurojust and Europol, in particular when both bodies are required to liaise in the
coordination, organisation and implementation of investigative and operational actions carried
out jointly with the Member States’ competent authorities or in the context of joint
investigation teams.

6.2 The revised Eurojust Decision allows for Eurojust to post Liaison Magistrates to third States.
Use of this provision will certainly improve co-operation with the countries affected and will
also enhance the support that Eurojust can offer Member States when dealing with cases
involving third countries.

6.3 The consultation process between Eurojust and the Council, put in place by the revised
Eurojust Decision, should allow Eurojust to benefit from the views, expertise and experiences
6
 EUROJUST
P.O. Box 16183
2500 BD The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS

of Member States in their relations with third States. Eurojust would also encourage the
exchange of experiences which EU bodies and agencies (Europol, Frontex, OLAF, etc) have
with third countries, and would wish to contribute to the debate at Council level on policy
priorities regarding the external dimension of the European criminal area.

6.4 Where necessary, Eurojust could assist with the facilitation and coordination of requests for
judicial co-operation to and from third States. This would encourage a more co-ordinated
approach to investigations and prosecutions conducted in the Member States when third
States are also involved.

* *
*