Article page checkbox is not checked in page info.

Revision of the Eurojust Regulation

9 October 2026

PDFs:

Languages:

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Revision of the Eurojust Regulation

Beatrix Immenkamp, Members' Research Service

BriefingEU Legislation in ProgressLast updated: 09/10/26Reading time: 18 minutes

Photograph of a suited man correcting a document, seated beside a blue European flag and a gavel.

Overview

On 24 June 2026, the European Commission published new measures to strengthen the European Union's response to an increasingly complex criminal landscape. The Commission seeks to enhance the EU's capacity to prevent, investigate, and prosecute serious cross-border crime, by modernising the legal frameworks that govern cooperation between law enforcement, judicial, and other relevant authorities.

The package includes two revised regulations, to strengthen the mandates of the EU agency for criminal justice cooperation (Eurojust) and the EU agency for law enforcement cooperation (Europol), an update of the directive on the European Investigation Order, and amendments to the Data Protection Regulation for Union institutions and bodies. The new measures are designed to ensure that police, customs, prosecutors and courts can work together more effectively across EU and external borders, to address the growing threat to European security.

With the revision of the Eurojust Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, the Commission seeks to address the issues identified by a 2025 evaluation of Eurojust and to modernise the agency's legal framework, aligning it with the Lisbon Treaty and the 2012 Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies. The 2025 evaluation found important structural and operational constraints hampering the agency's work, including inefficiencies in internal governance, inconsistencies in the application of the regulation across Member States, and limitations on cooperation with EU partners and third countries.

Accordingly, the revised regulation envisages changes to Eurojust's internal functioning and its governance, seeks to give the agency a more effective operational role and turn it into a more proactive player in cross-border criminal justice cooperation. It also aims to strengthen the agency's cooperation with EU partners and third countries, including EU candidate countries and potential candidate countries. Moreover, the Commission is proposing to expand Eurojust's mandate to cover additional crimes.

During the initial parliamentary discussion of the proposal, Members of the European Parliament expressed support for aspects of the reform but also raised questions, including concerning the proposed budget for the agency (considered too low), the division of powers between Eurojust and national authorities, Eurojust's ability to analyse data, the functioning of joint investigation teams and cooperation with third countries.

Procedural information

Table 1 – Legislative procedure
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
Committees responsible:	Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs	COM(2026) 570 24.06.2026
Rapporteurs:	Francisco Assis (S&D, Portugal)	2026/0164 (COD)
Next steps expected:	LIBE Report	2026/0164 (COD)

Data source: European Union.

Issue

Eurojust, the EU agency for criminal justice cooperation, saw a significant rise in cases and operational engagement in recent years .Eurojust assists national authorities with complex cross-border investigations and prosecutions, including by providing a platform for coordination, multilingual capabilities and structured cooperation with partners and third countries. The Commission's 2025 evaluation of the agency (the 2025 evaluation) found a generally positive assessment of Eurojust's operational support, while also identifying a number of structural and operational shortcomings.

According to the 2025 evaluation, national authorities generally expressed satisfaction with Eurojust's work. However, the same evaluation also revealed shortcomings, which the Commission wants to address to make the agency more efficient and effective. The Commission therefore proposes to revise the current Eurojust Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/1727) (hereafter 'the Eurojust Regulation').

The revision focuses on enhancing the agency's ability to support national competent authorities more proactively, removing data‑bottlenecks with other EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies, strengthening international cooperation, improving decision‑making structures and priority‑setting, allocating resources more efficiently and introducing new tools.

Main points of the proposal

With the proposal for a regulation on Eurojust (COM(2026) 570), (hereafter 'the proposed regulation'), repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, the Commission hopes to give Eurojust a new mandate that would significantly strengthen the agency's capacity to support national authorities, through changes in the following key areas:

Stronger capabilities and operational support: Eurojust would be able to act on its own initiative to establish links between cases, based on data received from national authorities or other EU JHA actors, propose judicial coordination and follow-up, help resolve jurisdictional issues and support national authorities earlier on in complex cross-border investigations.
Further support in emerging areas of crime: Eurojust's mandate would be expanded to strengthen its involvement in emerging areas of crime, such as cybercrime, violations of EU restrictive measures, or gender-based violence.
Stronger governance and decision-making: the proposed regulation would streamline decision-making within the agency, speeding up processes, increasing efficiency and allowing for faster action in urgent and complex cases.
An integrated EU criminal justice system: the proposed regulation would strengthen Eurojust's cooperation with Europol and the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO).
Stronger international engagement: the proposed regulation seeks to make cooperation with third countries more flexible, by allowing Eurojust to engage with third countries earlier. It also seeks to enhance the role of contact points and liaison prosecutors.

Stronger capabilities and operational support

A July 2026 Commission study to support the impact assessment for the revision of the Eurojust Regulation found that there was no clear definition of a 'Eurojust case' and 'very limited use of own-initiative powers', diluting the agency's 'strategic focus away from complex, multi-jurisdictional cases where Eurojust adds most value'.

An entirely new section in the proposed regulation, entitled 'operational activities on own initiative', seeks to remedy this situation. The proposed regulation would allow Eurojust to carry out operational activities on its own initiative, removing the need for a request from a Member State (Article 28). National Members, acting on behalf of Eurojust, would be able to ask the competent authorities of their Member State to undertake investigations or prosecutions, extend the scope of investigations to other Member States or third countries, prioritise a request for judicial cooperation in cases of conflicting or competing requests, coordinate between the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, and set up joint investigation teams.

The proposed regulation would also:

give Eurojust a more proactive role in facilitating and supporting the issuing, transmission and requests for judicial cooperation and mutual recognition instruments,¹ in particular by advising on the appropriate instruments, supporting the drafting of such instruments, and facilitating contacts with competent national authorities (Article 25(2)(b));
allow Eurojust to assist in the prevention, identification and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction between competent national authorities, including by identifying parallel or linked proceedings, providing legal advice and facilitating the transfer of proceedings, if necessary (Article 25(2)(c));
allow Eurojust to proactively cross-check information contained in relevant databases to identify links between cross-border investigations (Article 25(2)(e));
allow Eurojust to take on an important role in facilitating and supporting the cross-border tracing, freezing, confiscation and recovery of criminal assets in cross-border cases (Article 25(2)(f)), in response to stepped up efforts to increase the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime;
allow Eurojust to establish judicial coordination platforms to support particularly complex cross-border investigations (Article 27);
strengthen the agency's role in collecting, preserving, analysing and storing evidence and information that may be used as evidence, in relation to Eurojust's role in combating core international crimes (Article 29);²
involve Eurojust in developing and maintaining specialised knowledge and expertise in judicial cooperation in criminal matters, to provide support to practitioners in cross-border investigations and prosecutions. Eurojust's specialised knowledge would be derived from its own casework, the European Judicial Network (EJN) and the experience of the contact points of other relevant networks and bodies (Article 30). Eurojust would be required to identify cross-cutting issues, identify best practices and develop practical tools for practitioners. This specialised knowledge would be made available partly through newly‑established Eurojust Centres of Expertise in criminal matters, internal structures to provide strategic, analytical and operational support to the national desks, the competent national authorities and other stakeholders (Article 31);
give Eurojust new powers to protect victims' rights in cross-border investigations, by identifying victims in cases involving a large number of victims, and to advise national authorities on the rights of victims (Article 33);
let Eurojust contribute to analytical products on internal security, including strategic analyses, threat assessments, trend reports and situational briefings, led by Europol (Article 34). The agency would also support the participation of judicial authorities in the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT).

Status and powers of national members

Eurojust's operational tasks are performed by 26 national members,³ seconded by Member States to Eurojust headquarters in The Hague for a five-year term, renewable once. They have the status of a prosecutor, a judge or a representative of a judicial authority with competences equivalent to those of a prosecutor or judge under their national law. National members are responsible for overseeing the operational work of their respective desks, supported by a deputy and an assistant.

A 2025 study found that the status (Article 7), powers (Article 8), and access to national registers of operational data (Article 9) by National Members differs from Member State to Member State,⁴ with the result that Eurojust operates unevenly from one national desk to another.

The proposed regulation would require National Members to be active members of the public prosecution service or judiciary of their Member State (Article 16), establishing eligibility criteria and ensuring even operational capabilities across all national desks. The proposed regulation also asks for each national desk to be supported further by at least one seconded national expert.

Moreover, in a very limited set of circumstances, the proposed regulation would give national members greater powers, not requiring prior agreement of the competent national authority, thus allowing Eurojust to respond better to urgent cross-border situations and guarantee the necessary follow-up. New powers would include the ability to directly contact and exchange operational information and evidence with competent national and third-country authorities and relevant Union bodies, open and manage cases in the Eurojust Case Management System (CMS), organise coordination meetings and coordination centres, participate in, facilitate and initiate joint investigation teams (JITs), including by signing JIT agreements, participate in joint operational platforms and judicial coordination platforms, ask competent national authorities to undertake investigations or prosecutions, and assist in the identification and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction (Article 18(1)).

To facilitate the recovery of criminal proceeds, the proposed regulation would authorise national members – with the agreement of the competent national authority, or without, in urgent cases – to also issue, request and execute freezing orders,⁵ and to request their national asset recovery office to provide information on instrumentalities, proceeds or property which are or might become the object of a freezing or confiscation order and to take immediate action until a freezing order is issued.⁶ Moreover, national members would also have the right to issue a European Production Order or a European Preservation Order⁷ for the purposes of preserving and collecting electronic evidence (Article 18(2)).

Emerging areas of crime

Eurojust is competent to deal with the 30 forms of serious crime listed in Annex I of the Eurojust Regulation, and related offences. The proposed regulation would expand Eurojust's mandate to strengthen the agency's ability to react to address three growing crime areas (cyberattacks, violations of EU restrictive measures, and gender-based violence), and extend Eurojust's competence to offences in Annex I 'committed in connection with, or forming part of, activities having a hybrid dimension' (Article 5). Moreover, the crime of 'aggression' is added to the list of crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Stronger governance and decision-making

The structure of Eurojust currently comprises national members, the Eurojust College (composed of all national members), a president and vice-presidents (elected by the College), an executive board (responsible for taking administrative decisions), and an administrative director. The executive board is composed of the President and Vice-Presidents of Eurojust, one representative of the Commission and two other members of the Eurojust College designated on a two-year rotation system.

Their expertise makes national members uniquely qualified to deal with the operational aspects of Eurojust's work. Nevertheless, the 2025 evaluation found that national members spend 40 %‑50 % of their time on administrative work, preventing them from focusing on the core operational tasks for which they have been seconded.

The proposed regulation introduces a new governance structure for Eurojust, distinguishing between a managerial structure and an operational structure. The new management structure (Articles 7‑11) would include a management board, an executive board and the administrative director, while the operational structure would comprise the national members and the Eurojust College.

The management board would take key management decisions and provide strategic orientation for Eurojust's activities. It would be composed of one representative per Member State and one Commission representative, and would be responsible for adopting the single programming document, the annual budget, the staff and security rules and other non-operational decisions.

The Commission argues that the clear separation between management and case-work would allow national members to devote their time more effectively to casework. Moreover, this revision would align the governance structure of Eurojust with the approach recommended by the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament for all EU decentralised agencies.

An integrated EU criminal justice system

Cooperation with Europol

The proposed concurrent revisions of the Eurojust and the Europol Regulation are at the centre of the Commission's criminal justice initiatives published on 24 June 2026. The two agencies have distinct yet complementary roles: whereas Europol supports the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal activities, Eurojust facilitates judicial cooperation and ensures effective prosecutorial and judicial follow-up.

Article 57 of the proposed Eurojust regulation envisages the establishment of closer cooperation between Europol and Eurojust, 'with a view to ensuring the coherent and coordinated exercise of their respective mandates and avoiding duplication of effort'. The practical modalities of cooperation are to be recorded in a working arrangement, which would be reviewed regularly.⁸ Where necessary, and with the consent of the competent national authorities of the Member States concerned, the two agencies would be able to establish coordination mechanisms, including joint operational platforms to support strategic and operational coordination in cross-border criminal investigations requiring coordination between two or more Member States (Article 57(5)). The changes proposed by the regulation would also allow Eurojust to get involved in Europol's cases at an earlier stage to ensure the necessary judicial follow-up (Article 57(4)).

Cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor's Office

The EPPO is the independent public prosecution office of the EU, responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal offences affecting the EU's financial interests. Currently, all Member States participate in the EPPO, except for Denmark and Ireland.

Eurojust and the EPPO began to cooperate when the EPPO started operating in 2021. At that point, the EPPO took over the coordination of cross-border cases affecting the financial interests of the EU from Eurojust. Eurojust still fulfils this role in cases involving Member States which do not participate in the EPPO, or serious cross-border crime falling outside the EPPO's competence.

The Commission's impact assessment for the Eurojust revision found that cooperation between Eurojust and the EPPO has remained 'largely underdeveloped due to legal and structural constraints', which results in a 'missed opportunity to fully exploit Eurojust's support in the area of crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, often linked with organised crime.

The proposed regulation would introduce more systematic cooperation and would give Eurojust a stronger mandate to support the EPPO (Article 58). Beyond the timely exchange of information, Eurojust would support the EPPO by facilitating the setting up and operation of joint investigation teams, and organising coordination meetings and centres. Representatives of the EPPO would be invited to participate in meetings of the Eurojust College where matters of common interest are discussed.

Hit/No-hit system

In May 2023, Europol and Eurojust launched a pilot project for the systematic and structural exchange of data on a 'hit/no hit' basis for link detection purposes. The process supported the cross-checking of information and the linking of ongoing investigations. A similar project with the EPPO followed in May 2024. The Eurojust 2024 annual activity report found that the pilots had led to a more structured and systematic data exchange with Europol and the EPPO for the purpose of cross-checking; and a better response to operational needs and enhanced operational cooperation, particularly in relation to establishing links between data already in the possession of either agency. Nevertheless, the evaluation found the hit/no-hit system for data exchanges with Europol and the EPPO to be 'cumbersome and manual', delaying operational follow-up.

The proposed regulation envisages further improvements to the hit/no-hit system, moving away from manual verification to an automated system (Article 55(1)). This would allow agencies to identify links between law enforcement data and judicial proceedings more quickly.

Stronger international engagement

Eurojust cases increasingly involve third countries, either because they concern transnational crimes involving one or more third countries, or because of the transfer of the proceeds of crime beyond the EU's border.

For the past five years, about 20 % of newly registered Eurojust cases have involved a third country. Countries that have posted a liaison prosecutor to Eurojust – 12 in total⁹ – and thus benefit from the possibility of systematic exchanges of evidence and personal data, show the highest involvement in Eurojust cases: in 2025, Switzerland was involved in 275 cases, followed by the United Kingdom (244), Albania (121) and Ukraine (101). Eurojust has the possibility of posting liaison officers to third countries; however, at present, none are seconded.

Eurojust also has contact points in 82 countries worldwide as well as three regional organisations.¹⁰ Contact points can facilitate or coordinate the execution of requests for judicial cooperation either from EU authorities to third countries or vice-versa.

Cooperation with third countries takes place within the framework of international agreements, cooperation agreements, working arrangements or Memoranda of Understanding (MoU). Eurojust can conclude working arrangements and MoUs itself, and has done so with 13 countries and several international organisations.¹¹ However, the central pillar of international cooperation in judicial matters are international agreements, since only these allow for the exchange of operational information, including evidence and personal data. International agreements were previously concluded by Eurojust itself, but they are now concluded by the EU based on Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU).¹²

The negotiation of international agreements is a lengthy process that often takes many years and does not always lead to the conclusion of an actual agreement. However, in the absence of an international agreement, Eurojust has only limited means to engage with international partners in a systematic manner.

The proposed regulation aims to address this difficulty by strongly enhancing the role of contact points in third countries (Article 64) and introducing a new possibility of contact points posted by third countries at Eurojust (Article 63).¹³

At the same time, the proposed regulation aims to further strengthen the role of liaison prosecutors posted at Eurojust under a cooperation agreement, which would be allowed to open, register and manage cases. Moreover, liaison officers would not only be posted to third countries to assist with cases in which Eurojust is providing assistance, but would be posted to generally facilitate judicial cooperation of Member States with the third country concerned. The proposed regulation also wants to see liaison prosecutors seconded to Eurojust from third countries or from international organisations participate in meetings of the Eurojust College where matters of common interest are discussed, to strengthen operational relationships and facilitate direct exchanges between practitioners (Article 21).

Data protection

The proposal retains the legal bases and safeguards governing data exchange and provides that the processing of personal data must comply with requirements of necessity and proportionality and remain subject to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) oversight. Moreover, the proposed regulation would align the rules for the processing of operational personal data by Eurojust with the data protection rules applicable to all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, set out in the EUDPR, thereby removing fragmentation and duplication. The Commission has also published a proposal to update the EUDPR, to allow for more effective cooperation across EU criminal justice agencies.

Budgetary implications

The Commission proposes to increase Eurojust's budget by €119 million over the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) from 2028 to 2034, primarily to fund an additional 87 members of staff, IT infrastructure upgrades and digital cooperation tools. The total EU contribution to Eurojust over the next MFF would amount to €625 million.

Parliament's prior position

The European Parliament's involvement with Eurojust takes place within its wider legislative and oversight roles in the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). It contributes to shaping the legal framework for judicial cooperation and ensures democratic oversight of EU JHA agencies. Under the Eurojust Regulation, the European Parliament and national parliaments jointly evaluate Eurojust activities once a year, as part of an interparliamentary committee meeting. In November 2025, Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) hosted the 6th interparliamentary committee meeting, which discussed Eurojust's contribution to fighting economic crime and the regulation's planned revision. On 25 June 2026, the Commission presented the proposed regulation to the members of the LIBE Committee.¹⁴

Council's position

On 13 October 2025, the Justice and Home Affairs Council debated the future of Eurojust. Ministers expressed 'broad appreciation for Eurojust's work' and called for its 'support for national investigations to be consolidated'. Ministers also provided political guidance, asking for the agency to be given the 'necessary resources and tools to support concrete investigations', and play a role in improving judicial cooperation between the EU and third countries, including concerning the extradition of drug criminals.

Since the publication of the proposed regulation, the Council Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters (COPEN) has discussed the proposal several times, supported by a non-paper on the proposed governance structure of Eurojust and Eurojust's initial reaction to the proposed regulation.¹⁵ Experts broadly welcomed the proposal, while also drawing attention to issues such as cooperation with third countries, Eurojust's own initiative actions and the interaction with networks, including the European Judicial Network. Early meetings have also made it clear that the reform of the governance model of Eurojust is a particularly crucial issue for Member States.

On 2 October 2026, the Justice and Home Affairs Council discussed the revision of Eurojust's mandate. Ministers provided guidance for further work towards reaching a Council negotiating position, especially as regards the agency's proposed governance model – about which they expressed reservations – and the way the agency cooperates with third countries in countering organised crime.¹⁶

Preparation of the proposal

In the European Internal Security Strategy (ProtectEU), published on 1 April 2025, the Commission announced it would assess Eurojust's mandate, with the aim of strengthening the agency. In May 2024, the Commission launched a call for evidence for an evaluation of Eurojust, with the evaluation report published in July 2025. In 2025, the Commission also published a study prepared to support the evaluation of the implementation and impact of the Eurojust Regulation.

In the annexes to the 2026 Commission work programme, the Commission announced it would seek to strengthen Eurojust through a legislative initiative based on Article 85 TFEU, the legal basis for Eurojust's mission. The initiative is part of the EU's effort to fight cross‑border crime, which in turn is intended to protect EU democracy and uphold its values. The Commission ran a public consultation from 2 December 2025 to 24 February 2026, to which it received 20 replies.

Alongside the proposed regulation, on 24 June 2026, the Commission published an impact assessment. On 28 July 2026, the Commission also published a study prepared to support the impact assessment for the revision of the Eurojust Regulation.

Points of view

Eurojust

Eurojust has welcomed the proposal as a 'significant milestone in Eurojust's evolution', marking a decisive shift from a primarily reactive, on-demand model of judicial cooperation towards a more proactive and strategic role for the Agency.' The agency notes:

The proposal successfully preserves Eurojust's nature as a body that supports and coordinates national judicial authorities, without interfering with their operational decision-making powers or prosecutorial prerogatives.

Eurojust has, however, questioned whether operational and managerial responsibilities can be fully separated in a judicial agency and has expressed concerns about the proposed management board, concerned that the proposed changes would increase institutional complexity and administrative burden. Eurojust maintains that 'operational and managerial responsibilities cannot be fully separated in a judicial agency such as Eurojust'. The agency calls for a governance model that safeguards Eurojust's judicial independence, where the most important decisions remain in the hands of judicial authorities. Eurojust is also asking for its financial needs, especially in relation to information technology, to be 'adequately reflected in the forthcoming multiannual financial framework'. The agency would like to see a greater focus on artificial intelligence to support its operational tools.

European Judicial Network

The European Judicial Network (EJN) is a network of nearly 450 national contact points in the EU facilitating cooperation in criminal matters. The EJN secretariat is located at Eurojust in The Hague (The Netherlands) and is run by Eurojust's staff, but functions as a separate unit. The 66th plenary meeting of the EJN in May 2026 adopted conclusions on the future of the EJN, which describe the EJN as fulfilling a unique role in facilitating day-to-day judicial cooperation between practitioners and as a practitioner-driven and decentralised network built on direct contacts, mutual trust and practical expertise. The EJN sees itself as complementary to Eurojust, both fulfilling different but mutually reinforcing functions within the EU judicial cooperation framework. In its conclusions, the EJN stressed the importance of maintaining effective communication and cooperation between the two structures, while preserving the specific role and identity of the EJN.

European Data Protection Supervisor

On 11 August 2026, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued an opinion on the proposed regulation.

The EDPS welcomed:

that any automated processing of operational personal data should continue to take place within the integrated data processing environment of the Case Management System (CMS), subject to limited exceptions;
that communication between the competent national authorities and Eurojust should continue to primarily take place through a network of IT systems and interoperable e-Codex access points;
strong data protection safeguards.

However, the EDPS also recommends certain additions, including:

a clear definition of Eurojust and Member State roles and responsibilities when processing operational personal data;
clearer rules on the databases Eurojust would be allowed to cross-check and under which conditions;
information on the EU offices, bodies and agencies that would have indirect access via Eurojust's 'hit/not-hit' system; and
clearer rules on exchanges of personal data with private parties and third countries.

European Parliament supporting analyses

Immenkamp, B., Strengthening Eurojust, EPRS, European Parliament, March 2026.
Huemer, M. with Ricotta, M., The revision of the Eurojust Regulation: Implementation takeaways, EPRS, European Parliament, June 2026.

Other sources

EDPS Opinion 19/2026 on the Proposal for the Regulation on the establishment of Eurojust and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, European Data Protection Supervisor, 11 August 2026.
Eurojust, Eurojust Strategy on Cooperation with International Partners 2024-2027, 27 March 2024.

Endnotes

1A number of EU instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters are based on the principle of mutual recognition.These include, for example, the European Arrest Warrant, the European Investigation Order, the transfer of prisoners, European supervision orders, freezing and confiscation orders.

2 Regulation (EU) 2022/838 of 30 May 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 as regards the preservation, analysis and storage at Eurojust of evidence relating to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related criminal offences.

3Because Denmark does not take part in the Eurojust Regulation, it has a representative at Eurojust, but not a national member.

4 Support study for the Evaluation of the implementation and impact of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of 14 November 2018 on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and of the effectiveness and efficiency of Eurojust and its working practices, DG JUST, European Commission, April 2025, p. 42.

5As provided for in Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders.

6In accordance with Directive 2024/1260 of 24 April 2024 on asset recovery and confiscation.

7As provided for in Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of 12 July 2023 on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings.

8An agreement between Europol and Eurojust has been in force since 1 January 2010.

9Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. Of the 13 countries that have either signed a cooperation agreement with Eurojust, or an international agreement with the EU, only Liechtenstein has not seconded a liaison prosecutor to Eurojust.

10The Ibero-American Association of Public Prosecutors (AIAMP), the Anti-Drug Prosecutors Network (CPLP) and the West African Network of Central Authorities and Prosecutors (WACAP-UNODC).

11Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea and Uruguay, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (OTP-ICC), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the International Criminal Police Organisation (ICPO-Interpol), the Ibero-American Association of Public Prosecutors (AIAMP). In 2024, Eurojust announced that it would seek working arrangements with Australia, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Kosovo* (*This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.), the Philippines, the Seychelles, South Africa, Türkiye, Thailand and Vietnam.

12Eurojust concluded 12 cooperation agreements with third countries before Eurojust Regulation 2018/1727 became applicable on 12 December 2019 (with Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United States of America). Since then, international agreements on cooperation with Eurojust have been negotiated by the Commission and concluded between the EU and the third country or international organisation in question. In 2021, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with 13 countries (Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkiye) and with the International Criminal Police Organisation (ICPO-Interpol). Cooperation agreements with Armenia, Lebanon, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been concluded, and agreements with Armenia and Lebanon have entered into force and are applicable. On 4 September 2026, the Commission proposed to open negotiations for cooperation agreements with eight additional countries, namely Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, United Arab Emirates (six of these countries have already concluded working arrangements with Eurojust). A special agreement is in force for cooperation with Denmark. Eurojust cooperates with the United Kingdom under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, an international agreement.

13The Commission's impact assessment proposes this as a policy option, referring to it as 'institutionalising the role of resident contact points for priority third countries'. The impact assessment defined 'resident contact points' as 'third country magistrates or officials seconded to Eurojust to facilitate contacts with national authorities and assist the agency in navigating domestic procedural frameworks'. Contact points would be posted on the basis of a simple working arrangement (rather than a full-blown cooperation agreement), they would not have access to Eurojust's case management system and would operate under a more limited mandate (than third-country liaison prosecutors). This explicit reference to resident contact points in the regulation would establish clear rules concerning their appointment, functions, and operational limitations.

14For further information on Parliament's prior positions on Eurojust, see Immenkamp, B., Strengthening Eurojust, EPRS, European Parliament, March 2026.

15 Council document WK 10627/26 is not public.

16 Agence Europe summarised that: 'many delegations [ ] would prefer to change how responsibilities are divided among the existing bodies rather than create a new one'. Germany, France, Belgium, and Austria presented a joint proposal to that effect. Sweden, Luxembourg, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic, and several other states also expressed concern about the proposed management board, fearing it would add complexity and further administrative burdens. France said it opposed the body, which could 'complexify the process and decision-making systems'. A recording of the debate is available here. See also the press conference following the debate as well as the Council conclusions.

Classification

Policy areas: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Regions: European Union

Committees: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)

Statement on the use of AI

Any AI-generated content in this text has been reviewed by the author. ChatGPT was used to research background information.

Disclaimer

This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament.

Copyright

The reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence.

CC BY

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

To use or reproduce elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightsholders.