Annual Report 2012
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal
Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France
Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium
Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia
Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg
Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
© Eurojust, 2013
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
This publication covers the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Catalogue number: QP-AA-13-001-EN-C
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
ISBN: 978-92-95084-29-2
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
ISSN: 1831-4279
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
DOI: 10.2812/51482
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
For enquiries:
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Phone: + 31 70 412 5000
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
E-mail: xxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xx
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Website: www.eurojust.europa.eu
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain S weden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Ger
Eurojust Annual Report 2012
Eurojust’s vision is to be the key player and centre of
expertise at judicial level in the fight against orga-
nised cross-border crime in the European Union
link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 39 link to page 39
Table of contents
Note re Eurojust Decision ........................................................................................................................................................................5
List of acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................5
Foreword .........................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................................................................8
Eurojust’s 10th Anniversary ................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Celebrations in the Nieuwe Kerk and the Ridderzaal .....................................................................................................11
Visit of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands .................................................................................................11
1.
Operational activities ....................................................................................................................14
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
1.2
Overview of Eurojust’s casework ...................................................................................................................................... 15
General problems and best practice in Eurojust’s casework .......................................................................................15
Coordination meetings .................................................................................................................................................................16
Coordination centres .....................................................................................................................................................................17
Articles 6 and 7 of the Eurojust Decision .............................................................................................................................18
Mutual Legal Assistance Conventions .....................................................................................................................................18
Issues regarding gathering and admissibility of evidence ...........................................................................................19
Prevention and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction .....................................................................................................19
Transfer of criminal proceedings ............................................................................................................................................20
Exchange of criminal records ....................................................................................................................................................20
European Arrest Warrants .........................................................................................................................................................21
Freezing orders ................................................................................................................................................................................23
Confiscation and asset recovery ...............................................................................................................................................23
Controlled deliveries ......................................................................................................................................................................24
1.3
Eurojust’s activities in crime priority areas .................................................................................................................. 24
Terrorism ............................................................................................................................................................................................24
Drug trafficking ..............................................................................................................................................................................26
Trafficking in human beings ......................................................................................................................................................27
Fraud ....................................................................................................................................................................................................28
Corruption .........................................................................................................................................................................................30
Cybercrime ........................................................................................................................................................................................29
Money laundering ..........................................................................................................................................................................30
(Mobile) organised crime groups ............................................................................................................................................31
Illegal immigration ........................................................................................................................................................................32
Crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests .......................................................................................................................32
Contact Point for Child Protection at Eurojust - Crimes against children .............................................................33
1.4
Joint investigation teams ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Eurojust’s financial support to JIT operations ...................................................................................................................35
1.5
Eurojust casework involving third States ...................................................................................................................... 36
Liaison Prosecutors from third States seconded to Eurojust .......................................................................................36
1.6
Eurojust and the practitioner networks ......................................................................................................................... 37
European Judicial Network ........................................................................................................................................................37
2012 Annual Report
3
link to page 39 link to page 40 link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 45 link to page 45 link to page 45 link to page 46 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 52 link to page 53 link to page 53 link to page 56 link to page 58 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44
JITs Network .....................................................................................................................................................................................37
Genocide Network ..........................................................................................................................................................................38
2.
Relations with EU institutions and partners .....................................................................40
2.1
Institutional relations ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
European Parliament ...................................................................................................................................................................41
Council of the European Union .................................................................................................................................................41
European Commission ..................................................................................................................................................................41
2.2
Relations with practitioner networks .............................................................................................................................. 42
European Judicial Training Network .....................................................................................................................................42
Consultative Forum of Prosecutors General and Directors of Public Prosecutions ...........................................42
2.3
EU agencies and bodies .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Europol ................................................................................................................................................................................................42
European Anti-Fraud Office ........................................................................................................................................................43
Frontex ................................................................................................................................................................................................43
CEPOL ..................................................................................................................................................................................................43
2.4
Relations with third States and organisations outside the European Union .................................................. 44
3.
The Eurojust Decision and the future .....................................................................................46
3.1
Implementation of the Eurojust Decision ...................................................................................................................... 47
3.2
Sixth round of mutual evaluations on the practical implementation and operation
of the Decisions on Eurojust and the European Judicial Network ...................................................................... 47
3.3
Task Force on the Future of Eurojust .............................................................................................................................. 48
3.4
Conference on Ten years of Eurojust, operational achievements and future challenges .............................. 48
4.
Administrative developments ......................................................................................................50
4.1
Administrative developments ............................................................................................................................................. 51
4.2
Public access to documents .................................................................................................................................................. 51
5.
Follow-up to Council Conclusions .............................................................................................54
Annex - Eurojust case statistics ................................................................................................................56
Figure 1 - Case evolution 2002-2012 .......................................................................................................................................................57
Figure 2 - Bilateral/multilateral cases by National Desk 2012 ....................................................................................................57
Figure 3 - Cases opened/closed 2003-2012 ..........................................................................................................................................58
Figure 4 - General case classification ......................................................................................................................................................58
Figure 5 - Priority crime types in Eurojust cases ...............................................................................................................................59
Figure 6 - Priority crime types and other crime types in Eurojust cases .................................................................................59
Figure 7 - Eurojust cases: requesting countries ..................................................................................................................................60
Figure 8 - Eurojust cases: requested countries ...................................................................................................................................60
Figure 9 - Total number of coordination meetings ...........................................................................................................................61
Figure 10 - Coordination meetings: requesting countries .............................................................................................................61
Figure 11 - Coordination meetings: requested countries ...............................................................................................................62
4 2012 Annual Report
Note re Eurojust Decision
Eurojust Decision – the Council Decision of 28 Febru- ferred to in this report as the “Eurojust Decision”. A
ary 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforc- consolidated version of the Eurojust Decision, pre-
ing the fight against serious crime, as last amended pared by the Council General Secretariat for infor-
by Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December mation purposes only, is available on our website at
2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust, will be re-
www.eurojust.europa.eu.
List of acronyms
CMS
Case Management System
EAW
European Arrest Warrant
EIO
European Investigation Order
ENCS
Eurojust National Coordination System
EPPO
European Public Prosecutor’s Office
JIT
joint investigation team
LoR
Letter of Request
MLA
mutual legal assistance
OCC
On-Call Coordination
OCG
organised crime group
OCTA
Organised Crime Threat Assessment
TE-SAT
Terrorism Situation and Trend Report
TFEU
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the Lisbon Treaty)
THB
trafficking in human beings
2012 Annual Report
5
Strong partnerships are the basis for progress
in helping meet the needs of citizens for
a safer, freer and more just Europe
Foreword
It is my pleasure to present the eleventh Annual Re- Eurojust maintains its commitment to tackle the EU
port, taking stock of Eurojust’s operational activi- crime priority crimes in a coordinated, coherent and
ties, organisational developments and partnership comprehensive manner and bring perpetrators to
relations in 2012.
justice, while working alongside Europol and other
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies and key play-
Eurojust makes continued progress in supporting ers in the field.
and strengthening coordination and cooperation be-
tween national investigation and prosecution author- Eurojust’s strategic reports on drug trafficking and
ities of the Member States when dealing with serious human trafficking, available on the Eurojust website,
cross-border crime cases.
highlight the main difficulties encountered in infor-
mation exchange, in coordination of efforts, in the
Eurojust’s unique tools, coordination meetings and execution of mutual legal assistance and in the appli-
coordination centres, are frequently used and valued cation of judicial cooperation instruments, and offer
by practitioners in streamlining operations, facilitating solutions to overcome identified problems.
immediate judicial follow-up, and resolving legal and
practical difficulties resulting from the differences in The changes brought by the Eurojust Decision en-
the 30 legal systems in the European Union.
hance Eurojust’s operational capabilities and its ties
with the competent national authorities in the Mem-
The positive trends and results of joint investigation ber States. The sixth round of mutual evaluations on
teams, a cooperation instrument employing the prin- the practical implementation and operation of the De-
ciples of mutual recognition and mutual trust, should cisions on Eurojust and the EJN, which began in May
also be highlighted. Eurojust is proud to be a driving 2012, will provide the impetus to fully implement the
force in the successful functioning of joint investiga- Eurojust Decision and will help in identifying short-
tion teams, by assisting with expert advice, by host- comings and best practice.
ing the JITs Network Secretariat and through our JIT
Funding Project.
With the entry into force of the TFEU, Eurojust has
also continued reflecting on the prospects for further
enhancement of Eurojust, as well as the possibility of
the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office
“from Eurojust”, in different
fora. In the course of this
memorable year, Eurojust celebrated its 10th anni-
versary in February, I was elected President of Euro-
just in April, and Mr Carlos Zeyen, National Member
for Luxembourg, was elected Vice-President in May.
Looking back at 10 years of achievements, Eurojust
has reached “cruising speed”. In my capacity as Presi-
dent of Eurojust, anticipating the future and the new
challenges ahead, our experience and expertise give
us the confidence to explore and realise our potential.
Michèle CONINSX
President of Eurojust
2012 Annual Report
7
Executive Summary
The number of cases where Member States requested ` Eurojust’s casework increased in the following
Eurojust’s assistance in fighting serious cross-border
EU priority crime areas in 2012: fraud; drug traf-
crime increased 6.4%, from 1 441 cases in 2011 to
ficking; (mobile) organised crime groups; money
1 533 cases in 2012. The development of Eurojust’s
laundering; cybercrime; terrorism and corruption.
coordinating and facilitating role is provided below:
` Eurojust published two strategic reports in 2012,
` The number of coordination meetings in 2012 was
both of which were then published as EU docu-
194, a slight decrease from 204 in 2011, possibly
ments:
reflecting a more efficient use of the coordination
meeting tool.
– Enhancing the work of Eurojust in drug traffick-
ing cases, highlighting the complexity of the ac-
` The number of coordination centres remained the
tivities required to coordinate high-level drug
same as in 2011, with seven.
trafficking cases; and
` Eurojust’s involvement in the setting up of JITs in-
– Eurojust’s Action against Trafficking in Human Be-
creased 42%, rising to 47 in comparison with 33
ings: Final Report and Action Plan for 2012 – 2016.
in 2011.
` The sixth round of mutual evaluations on the
` The combined use of these three coordination
practical implementation and operation of the
tools has been noted.
Decisions on Eurojust and the EJN began in May
2012 and will end in 2014. By the end of 2012,
` The number of registered cases concerning the ex-
based on information received from Member
ecution of EAWs was 259.
States, 11 Member States had not yet implement-
ed the Eurojust Decision. Eurojust hopes that the
` Enhanced involvement of the Eurojust Liaison
sixth round of mutual evaluations will provide the
Prosecutors was noted, in particular with regard
necessary impetus to the Member States to fully
to Norway.
implement the Eurojust Decision.
College of National Members, March 2013
Seated from left to right: Laima Čekelienė, LT; João Manuel Da Silva Miguel, PT; Robert Sheehan, IE; Francesco Lo Voi, IT; Raivo Sepp, EE, Vice-
President; Michèle Coninsx, BE, President; Carlos Zeyen, LU, Vice-President; Donatella Frendo Dimech, MT; Lampros Patsavellas, EL; Mariana
Lilova, BG; Gunars Bundzis, LV
Standing from left to right: László Venczl, HU; Francisco Jiménez-Villarejo, ES; Jolien Kuitert, NL; Lukáš Starý, CZ; Jesper Hjortenberg, DK;
Hans-Holger Herrnfeld, DE; Harri Tiesmaa, FI; Leif Görts, SE; Frances Kennah, UK; Daniela Buruiană, RO; Sylvie Petit-Leclair, FR; Mariusz
Skowroński, PL; Ingrid Maschl-Clausen, AT; Malči Gabrijelčič, SL; Ladislav Hamran, SK; Katerina Loizou, CY
8 2012 Annual Report
` Implementation of the Eurojust Decision inter-
` The Memorandum of Understanding between
nally: further work was done on the ENCS for se-
Eurojust and the Commission: on 20 July 2012,
cure e-mail transmission; fully functioning OCC;
Eurojust and the European Commission signed a
development of the CMS; and development of the
Memorandum of Understanding, formalising the
“smart” Article 13 PDF form.
exchange of information and seeking to enhance
cooperation in matters of mutual interest.
In addition, a first meeting of national correspond-
ents took place to discuss and exchange best prac-
` Administrative developments:
tice and experience and the state of play of the set-up
and functioning of the ENCS in the Member States.
– The number of prosecutors, judges and police of-
ficers having their regular place of work at Euro-
` The Task Force on the Future of Eurojust has been
just in The Hague in 2012 was 45.
active since 2009. In view of the announced pro-
posals of the Commission on Article 85 TFEU, the
– Eurojust’s budget for 2012 was EUR 32 967 000;
Task Force continued its activities on the reform
budget implementation was a record 98%.
of Eurojust, including possible governance set-ups
and the involvement of the European Parliament
– The number of JITs financially supported by Eu-
and national parliaments in the evaluation of Eu-
rojust nearly doubled from that of 2011, with 62
rojust’s activities. The Task Force also continued
JITs involving 22 Member States.
its activities regarding Article 86 TFEU on the es-
tablishment of the EPPO.
2012 Annual Report
9
Eurojust’s 10th Anniversary
Celebrations in the Nieuwe Kerk and the Ridderzaal
On 28 February 2012, Eurojust celebrated a major Beatrix, Mr Morten Bødskov, Minister of Justice of
landmark: its 10th anniversary. To commemorate the Denmark, Mr J.J. van Aartsen, Mayor of The Hague,
occasion, two events were held.
Mr Aled Williams, President of Eurojust, Mr Gilles
de Kerchove, EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Ms
On the evening of 27 February, Eurojust held its ALUM- Myria Vassiliadou, EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator,
NIght at the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague. In attendance and Ms Françoise Le Bail, Director General for Jus-
were ambassadors, Ministers of Justice, and high-rank- tice, European Commission, representing Ms Viviane
ing representatives from the Council, Commission and Reding, Vice-President and Commissioner for Justice,
European Parliament. Past and present Presidents of Fundamental Rights and Citizenship.
Eurojust, National Members and administrative staff
who were instrumental in the development of Euro- A press conference took place following the opening cer-
just were interviewed. Eurojust’s first promotional emony, attended by Mr Williams, the two Eurojust Vice-
film was screened, and the new website was launched. Presidents, Ms Michèle Coninsx and Mr Raivo Sepp, as
well as Mr Bødskov, Mr de Kerchove and Ms Le Bail.
On the following morning, as a prelude to the infor-
mal meeting of the Ministers of the Justice and Home The topic of the informal meeting of the Ministers of the
Affairs Council under the Danish EU Presidency, Justice and Home Affairs Council following the opening
high-ranking officials paid homage to Eurojust in the ceremony was:
The main achievements and further de-
historic Ridderzaal in The Hague. Featured speak-
velopment of Eurojust: how to strengthen the role of Eu-
ers were: HE I.W. Opstelten, Minister of Justice of
rojust in judicial cooperation between the investigating
the Netherlands, representing Her Majesty Queen
and prosecuting authorities of the Member States.
Visit of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
In the context of Eurojust’s 10th anniversary celebra- staff, and a crystal memento commissioned for her
tions, the President of Eurojust, Ms Coninsx, had the visit was viewed. Several presentations on Eurojust,
great honour of hosting the visit to Eurojust on 26 its history and case illustrations, were delivered. Her
September 2012 of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Majesty showed herself to be well informed about the
Netherlands. Her Majesty met the National Members work of Eurojust and the challenges faced by the Eu-
and Liaison Prosecutors, as well as the administrative ropean Union in fighting serious cross-border crime.
2012 Annual Report
11
Eurojust’s 10th Anniversary
12
2012 Annual Report
13
Operational activities
1.1 Introduction
Eurojust’s work priorities for 2012, adopted in line (Article 4.2 Eurojust Decision), followed by crimes
with the Council’s conclusions on setting the EU’s pri- against life, limb or personal freedom. Detailed figures
orities in the fight against organised crime, are ter- regarding casework and Member States’ involvement
rorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, are provided in the Annex.
fraud, corruption, cybercrime (including child sexual
abuse images), money laundering, organised crime Practitioners consider coordination meetings to be
(including (mobile) organised crime groups), illegal one of Eurojust’s main tools, bringing together ju-
immigration, and criminal offences affecting the EU’s dicial and law enforcement authorities. While the
financial interests (so-called PIF offences).
overall number of coordination meetings slightly
decreased in 2012 to 194 compared to 204 in 2011,
Eurojust’s operational casework in these areas, includ- this reduction possibly reflects a more efficient use of
ing obstacles and identified best practice, and its stra- the coordination meeting tool. Approximately 55% of
tegic initiatives and contributions, are detailed below.
coordination meetings involved three or more coun-
tries, and 89% concerned priority crimes.
In 2012, Eurojust assisted the Member States in 1 533
registered cases, a 6.4% increase over 2011, with ap- As in 2011, seven coordination centres were held at
proximately 20% involving three or more countries Eurojust in 2012.
and 78% involving the above-mentioned EU priority
crimes. The remainder of cases included mostly crimes Eurojust’s involvement in the setting up of JITs in-
other than those referred to in Article 4(1) of the Eu- creased by 42%, rising to 47 in comparison with 33
rojust Decision and for which the Member States’ in 2011, and the number of JITs financially supported
competent authorities requested Eurojust’s assistance by Eurojust nearly doubled that of 2011, totalling 62.
1.2 Overview of Eurojust’s casework
General problems and best practice in
at an early stage of investigation through coordina-
Eurojust’s casework
tion, where the procedural standards and evidential
requirements can be explained to all the parties in-
Eurojust’s casework in 2012 reflects its continued volved and the necessary LoRs prepared.
commitment to the resolution of problems in serious
cross-border crime cases. Eurojust facilitated the ex- Other more practical difficulties include specific re-
ecution of requests for, and decisions on, judicial co- quests for assistance with (i) the identification of the
operation, assisting the competent authorities of the competent national authority for judicial authorisa-
Member States in resolving practical and legal obsta- tion in relation to cross-border surveillance and con-
cles faced in their investigations and prosecutions.
trolled delivery cases; (ii) problems organising coordi-
nation meetings due to priority being given by national
Legal obstacles continued to arise as a result of dif- authorities to domestic workload; (iii) difficulties en-
ferences between the legal systems of the Member countered by national authorities in accessing busi-
States, and due to different rules on admissibility of ness registers, especially in relation to cases concern-
evidence, especially in relation to the interception of ing financial and economic crimes; and (iv) difficulties
telecommunications.
in persuading other Member States to begin a parallel
investigation or difficulties in providing them with suf-
Different procedures regarding house searches and ficient and admissible material for doing so.
the taking of witness statements and disparities in
relation to data retention rules in the various Mem- A spontaneous provision of information under Article
ber States, mostly in cases related to cybercrime but 7 of the 2000 MLA Convention with its 2001 Protocol
also in relation to other forms of organised crime, (MLA Convention) might not be considered sufficient
have led to difficulties. These issues can be resolved grounds for initiating an investigation due to different
2012 Annual Report
15
evidential requirements in the receiving Member A continuing problem with the issuance of EAWs is the
State, which may result in the inadmissibility of evi- refusal to surrender in cases where an executing au-
dence at the trial stage.
thority considers the requested person to be unlikely
to be granted a retrial when convicted
in absentia.
Another recurring issue is delay in the execution of
MLA requests, often due to different requirements Other problems that compromise the timely execu-
regarding the level of detail contained in the request, tion of EAWs include differences in crime definitions,
resulting in delay until further information and clarifi- requests for additional information, and translation
cation are received. Delay in the execution of MLA re- issues. Eurojust assists by facilitating dialogue be-
quests is exacerbated by simultaneous transmission of tween issuing and executing Member States and pro-
requests through different channels, poor translation, viding advice to help clarify the crime definitions in
lack of centralised databases and lengthy execution the jurisdictions involved.
procedures in certain Member States.
Other issues include limited feedback to Eurojust
In some instances, Eurojust was able to assist in draft- from national authorities concerning the outcome of
ing MLA requests, identifying and transmitting the the assistance requested and the final outcome of the
requests to the appropriate national authorities, and case, leading to difficulties in the evaluation of the in-
advising on evidential requirements in the requesting tervention of Eurojust or the functioning of a JIT.
and requested countries.
Eurojust also assists in the coordination of coercive
measures such as search warrants and arrest war-
rants, as well as in establishing direct contact between
the national authorities involved in both bilateral and
Conflict of jurisdiction case example. In
multilateral cases. Eurojust provides an open chan-
2011, precious metals with a value exceed-
nel for communication and plays an important role
ing GBP 1 million, consisting of 29 kg of
as mediator by,
inter alia, facilitating the prevention
gold and 160 kg of silver, were stolen from
of conflicts of jurisdiction. Its rapid intervention can
a truck in Belgium. The driver of the truck
result in the immediate execution of MLA requests.
claimed to have been the victim of an armed
robbery, during which the precious metals
Eurojust facilitates case information exchange via co-
were stolen. The truck was travelling from
ordination meetings and by funding and facilitating
Switzerland to the UK via Belgium. The driv-
the setting up and running of JITs, which have been
er was in fact a member of the OCG that had
recognised as two very effective tools in complex cases.
conspired to steal the cargo.
A conflict of jurisdiction issue arose, as three
Coordination meetings
suspects were apprehended in Belgium and
the remainder of the suspects were located in
In 2012, Eurojust held coordination meetings related
the UK. A coordination meeting at Eurojust re-
to 194 cases. This mechanism again proved valuable
solved this issue. The Belgian and UK authori-
for national authorities in cases involving other Mem-
ties were able to reach an agreement that all of
ber States or third States. Coordination meetings are
the suspects would be prosecuted in the UK.
set up for a number of reasons, an important one be-
ing the exchange of information between the partici-
After the arrest of the suspects, a JIT agree-
pating Member States. The advantage of early infor-
ment was signed, enabling the authorities in
mation exchange is that it allows Member States to
the UK and Belgium to easily share evidence
initiate investigations, identify possible parallel pro-
and respond quickly to apprehend those
ceedings in other Member States, exchange evidence,
suspects still at large. Close cooperation be-
overcome language barriers, and build mutual trust.
tween UK prosecutors and police authori-
ties, Belgian police and Eurojust ensured that
A coordination meeting may also be convened to facili-
those involved were brought to justice. In De-
tate and/or coordinate the execution of LoRs, thereby
cember 2012, six defendants were sentenced
simplifying, for example, the tracing and freezing of
to a total of 23 ½ years’ imprisonment.
funds. Coordination meeting participants may seek
assistance from a third State, coordinate ongoing in-
vestigations, or define a common strategy regarding
16 Operational activities
investigations in participating States. In some cases, authorities to new facts relayed by the coordination
the objective may be to agree upon a concrete division centre. Initiated in 2011 as a new tool in combating
of work between the participating national authorities, cross-border crime at EU level, coordination centres
or to reach a mutual understanding of which national were further developed and utilised in 2012.
authorities are in the best position to prosecute the
crimes involved.
As in 2011, seven coordination centres were held
at Eurojust by: France (3); Finland (1); Italy (1); the
An important feature of coordination meetings, and Netherlands (1); and the UK (1). They targeted the fol-
one used frequently in 2012, is that they allow States lowing crimes: illegal immigration (3); trafficking in
to plan common action and to set up JITs. Further- human beings (1); drug trafficking (1); child pornogra-
more, in addition to authorities from Member States, phy (1); and tax fraud linked with manure trading (1).
representatives of third States and EU bodies such as
Europol and OLAF may also, where appropriate, par- Three coordination centres were set up in cases where
ticipate in coordination meetings. During 2012, third a JIT was already running. In the framework of the ex-
States were represented at 49 coordination meetings, isting JIT, the coordination centre facilitated coordina-
Europol at 85 and OLAF at five.
tion among participating authorities from different
Member States and allowed for the elimination of any
information shortfall and enhanced coordination be-
Coordination centres
tween the national authorities even where, by means
of a JIT, coordination was already in place.
The coordination centre ensures real-time transmis-
sion and coordination of information between author- Cooperation with third parties such as Europol was
ities during a common action day of arrests, house/ enhanced. Europol participated in six out of seven
company searches and witness interviews. In addition coordination centres and supported the simultane-
to facilitating coordination at judicial level with the ous actions by cross-matching, analysing and linking
execution of EAWs, LoRs and freezing orders, a coor- emerging data sent to the coordination centre. Swit-
dination centre also facilitates on-the-spot decision- zerland and Interpol also participated actively in Eu-
making and immediate responses by national judicial rojust coordination centres in 2012.
Coordination centre case example. The French authorities initiated a case at Eurojust concerning an
Albanian OCG trafficking heroin and cocaine between the Netherlands, France and Albania. The OCG
had contacts in Belgium and other countries on the route from France to Albania (Italy, Switzerland,
Spain and possibly Greece). Requests for cross-border surveillance were sent and executed.
Eurojust hosted three coordination meetings to exchange information, to coordinate the execution of
surveillance requests and to discuss possible
ne bis in idem issues. As a result, a common action day was
planned in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Switzerland. These common efforts led the investiga-
tors to detect a future illicit drug transport from the Netherlands to France.
In March 2012, a coordination centre was held at Eurojust to ensure smooth information exchange dur-
ing the action day, with analytical support provided by Europol. Individuals involved in the drug traf-
ficking operation were arrested and the drugs seized. This day of common action triggered subsequent
law enforcement actions, resulting in 17 arrests, several house searches in France and the Netherlands,
and the seizure of 12 kg of heroin.
The Italian authorities, in close contact with the French and Dutch police, had been targeting the same
OCG for approximately one year and launched an operation on Italian territory in May 2012. This op-
eration resulted in the execution of 13 EAWs and the seizure of 15 kg of cocaine and 4 kg of heroin. The
swift and flexible organisation of the OCG required intensive exchanges of information between the
competent national authorities, particularly between the investigative bodies in the involved countries.
This round-the-clock information exchange, over approximately two weeks, was facilitated by Eurojust.
2012 Annual Report
17
Articles 6 and 7 of the Eurojust Decision
investigative measures (hearing of suspects and vic-
tims) in a Belgian fraud and euro counterfeiting case.
Articles 6 and 7 of the Eurojust Decision allow National
Members and the College to make casework recommen-
Requests to take special investigative measures – Arti-
dations to competent national authorities. These rec-
cle 6(1)(a)(vi)
ommendations illustrate the continuous, daily dialogue
between College Members and their national authori- In a case involving fraud, forgery and money launder-
ties on operational casework matters, and are often the ing, the Spanish authorities were requested to con-
result of information provided in an LoR or made avail- duct house searches and to initiate investigations un-
able during a coordination meeting or informal discus- der Article 6(1)(a)(vi).
sions with national authorities. Coordination meetings
are, indeed, one of the most frequently used tools.
Mutual Legal Assistance Conventions
These recommendations are generally informal. As
a result, the figures noted below do not provide a Two of the most used tools for judicial cooperation
complete overview of the recommendations made, as within the European Union are the MLA Convention
they merely refer to cases where an official audit trail and the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mu-
of judicial decisions is required under the domestic tual Assistance in Criminal Matters with its Protocols
law of a particular Member State.
(1959 Convention). Their application is generally
seen as positive and effective.
During 2012, nine formal recommendations were re-
corded under Article 6 of the Eurojust Decision and Difficulties arise from the fact that not all Member
all have been followed by the national authorities.
States have ratified the MLA Convention. However,
this situation does not necessarily constitute an ob-
Requests to undertake an investigation or prosecution stacle, for example, in the setting up of a JIT, if that
of specific acts – Article 6(1)(a)(i)
Member State has implemented the Framework Deci-
sion on JITs, or for conducting a hearing by videocon-
Two requests were issued under Article 6(1)(a)(i) by ference, which may also be done on the basis of the
the Italian Desk.
1959 Convention or the principle of reciprocity and/
or when its domestic legislation nevertheless allows
Requests to competent authorities to accept that one of for such measures.
them may be in a better position to undertake an inves-
tigation or prosecute specific acts – Article 6(1)(a)(ii)
Difficulties linked with the interception of telecom-
munications and cross-border surveillance, insuffi-
Two requests were issued on the basis of this provi- cient or inadequate use of the spontaneous exchange
sion by the Spanish Desk.
of information tool, and lack of an indication of time
limits in urgent requests, are still encountered and
Requests to competent authorities to coordinate be-
perceived as areas for improvement.
tween the competent authorities of the Member States
concerned – Article 6(1)(a)(iii)
Practical problems can arise where MLA requests do
not meet the required level of detail in the execut-
One request was issued under Article 6(1)(a)(iii). ing state, leading to uncertainties and possible non-
The Spanish Desk requested a coordination meet- execution of requests. Further problems remain in
ing with the Belgian authorities to address an asset relation to lack of or delay in feedback and informa-
recovery-related matter in a case of organised crime tion on the progress of the execution of MLA requests
and money laundering.
from the requested Member State. This situation is
especially problematic in urgent cases if suspects are
Requests to provide any information that is necessary for in custody, or if the use of other channels may not
the National Member to carry out their tasks – Article 6(1)
lead to results within the tight timeframe provided.
(a)(v); and requests to take any other measure justified for Eurojust has been called upon by national authori-
the investigation or prosecution – Article 6(1)(a)(vii)
ties to facilitate informal contact in such cases, often
speeding up the process significantly. A practical rec-
Three requests were issued on the basis of Article 6(1) ommendation to national prosecutors is the indica-
(a)(v) and (vii). The Spanish authorities were request- tion in urgent LoRs of domestic time limits and the
ed to facilitate the provision of information and other desired time for execution of the request.
18 Operational activities
Issues regarding gathering and admissibility
of evidence
Conflict of jurisdiction case example. An
As was also observed in 2011, different rules on the
OCG based in Bulgaria and Spain forced
gathering, admissibility and disclosure of evidence
victims chiefly of Bulgarian nationality into
continue to pose difficulties in efficiently fighting se-
prostitution in Spain. The branch of the OCG
rious cross-border crime. Differences in rules on data
in Bulgaria recruited victims from vulnera-
retention, especially in cases related to cybercrime
ble communities by offering work opportu-
and other crimes in which suspects use telecommu-
nities abroad. The victims were transported
nications to interact with each other, have caused an
to Spain and their passports were held. The
increasing number of problems. In such cases, time is
OCG branch in Spain forced the victims to
of the essence, especially in Member States in which
engage in prostitution in Spain by using
the time allotted for data retention is very limited.
threats and physical violence.
Domestic legislation on obtaining evidence varies.
The investigation began after one of the
This situation, which requires knowledge of the legal
victims escaped and reached the Bulgarian
systems concerned, makes the assistance of Eurojust
Embassy in Madrid, which immediately con-
particularly valuable. In a case involving a Slovenian
tacted the Spanish authorities. They started
national, defence counsel argued that the evidence
an investigation that eventually dismantled
gathered during an international operation in Ger-
the group in Spain. Judicial authorities in
many for the identification of the perpetrator did
both countries were running criminal pro-
not conform to German legislation and was therefore
ceedings against this group, and as both
inadmissible in the Slovenian court. Eurojust suc-
jurisdictions were submitting requests for
cessfully assisted the Slovenian judicial authorities
MLA, the Spanish Desk registered a case at
in obtaining information on the applicable criminal
Eurojust to obtain assistance with the coor-
procedural provisions in Germany. Direct exchange
dination of these activities.
of information and discussion of the different legal
systems in coordination meetings often prevent dif-
Eurojust hosted a coordination meeting in
ficulties and contribute to the resolution of problems
which both delegations were able to directly
related to the gathering and admissibility of evidence,
discuss the state of play of their investiga-
including in JITs.
tions. At the meeting, they reached an agree-
ment on several important aspects. First, both
Making national rules on the gathering and admis-
jurisdictions ensured swift execution of the
sibility of evidence available to other Member States
pending requests. Second, a possible
ne bis in
has contributed to knowledge-sharing and prevented
idem situation was prevented by delineating
obstacles. Eurojust can serve as a centre of expertise
the national proceedings. Bulgaria focused on
for best practice in this area.
prosecution of money laundering activities,
which Spain supported by providing evidence
When setting up JITs, another best practice developed
concerning the organised nature of the group
at Eurojust has been the inclusion of provisions on
under investigation. Spain focused on pros-
admissibility of evidence and disclosure obligations
ecuting the trafficking and sexual exploitation
in the JIT agreement, helping to prevent problems at
charges, for which Bulgaria interviewed wit-
a later stage.
nesses residing in its territory. Bulgaria also
activated a witness protection programme for
The future adoption of a Directive on the EIO could
the family of one victim in Spain.
potentially facilitate the resolution of difficulties
identified in this field.
Eurojust’s involvement significantly assist-
ed in establishing solid ground for further
development of the national prosecutions.
Prevention and resolution of conflicts of
jurisdiction
Eurojust makes limited formal use of its recommen- occur in which two or more Member States, in accord-
dation powers to prevent and resolve positive or neg- ance with their domestic law, have jurisdiction over a
ative conflicts of jurisdiction. Frequently, situations case; the vast majority of cases are resolved with the
2012 Annual Report
19
assistance of Eurojust and without the registration requested Member State (see
Issues regarding gather-
of a formal request to the concerned Member States.
ing and admissibility of evidence above), and a clear
In this respect, coordination meetings have been rec- interest on the part of the requested Member State to
ognised as a very useful tool, allowing for early dis- accept the transfer of the proceedings must be dem-
cussion and agreement between the competent au- onstrated. If the transfer is requested by the Member
thorities involved in parallel investigations. Lack of State that wishes to be the recipient, i.e. that wishes
information has been identified, on occasion, as an to prosecute, difficulties sometimes arise if a risk ex-
obstacle to the prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction. ists that the transfer may compromise a linked ongo-
Clarification of the scope of interrelated investiga- ing investigation in the requested Member State.
tions and early preparation and analysis in advance of
coordination meetings are considered best practice.
Difficulties also arise as a result of different substan-
tive and procedural rules. The entire file must be
Eurojust plays a predominantly preventive role by en- translated before the decision can be taken by the
couraging an early and informal exchange of views. A national authorities, and National Desks at Eurojust
comprehensive introduction on this subject is contained can only provide a preliminary assessment based on
in
Guidelines for deciding “Which jurisdiction should a case summary provided beforehand.
prosecute?”, found in the Eurojust Annual Report 2003.
Eurojust has also been involved in cases of negative Exchange of criminal records
conflicts of jurisdiction, in which no Member State
considered itself to be in the best position to inves- No major difficulties have been encountered by Eu-
tigate and/or prosecute. In July 2012, the College rojust in the exchange of criminal records, and when
adopted the
Guidelines for the Application of Article difficulties were encountered, they tended to be of a
7(2) and (3) of the Eurojust Decision, which describe practical nature.
the internal administrative procedure on the resolu-
tion of conflicts of jurisdiction and recurring refusals In Member States in which the European Criminal Re-
or difficulties concerning the execution of requests cords Information System (ECRIS) is not yet operat-
for judicial cooperation, including instruments giving ing, requests for the exchange of criminal records are
effect to the principle of mutual recognition.
sometimes facilitated by use of the MLA Conventions.
Difficulties can arise if National Desks do not have
access to criminal records or the records are held by
Transfer of criminal proceedings
different national authorities (e.g. police and judicial
authorities) and no centralised database of criminal
Most Member States continue to use the 1972 Euro- records exists. In urgent cases, Eurojust has been able
pean Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in to facilitate the obtaining of criminal records.
Criminal Matters or the 1959 Convention (Article 21)
in conjunction with Article 6(1) last paragraph of the Different definitions of crimes in the Member States
MLA Convention. Some Member States also use the have created occasional difficulties, leading to uncer-
United Nations Convention against Transnational Or- tainty as to the actual offence. Associated issues include
ganised Crime (Article 21). The use of these different the amount of information contained in the criminal re-
legal instruments can create difficulties that trigger cord, which some Member States deem insufficient un-
the national authorities to call upon Eurojust.
der their domestic legislation, resulting in delays while
the request for additional information is dealt with.
Eurojust has been able to assist in these cases by facil-
itating informal contact between Member States and In some cases, when criminal records are received,
informally examining the likelihood of the transfer in reference is made to a legal provision without a de-
advance of an official request. Occasionally, the trans- scription of the criminal offence. In these cases, the
fer of proceedings is agreed at a coordination meet- requesting Member State often requires Eurojust’s
ing as part of an agreement regarding jurisdiction to assistance in obtaining the relevant legislation to
prosecute, with the actual transfer achieved by the clarify this issue.
issuance and execution of EAWs and LoRs, if needed.
Complications and delays arise when judges in cer-
The reasons for difficulties in transferring criminal tain Member States require a copy of the full original
proceedings vary. Among other factors, the eviden- judgement and its translation, and an LoR will often
ce gathered must be admissible in the court of the need to be issued to obtain a copy of the judgement,
20 Operational activities
as the extract from the criminal record is insufficient introduction of the EAW scheme, any Member State
(for sentencing purposes).
has refused to surrender on the basis that the Min-
istry of Justice of the issuing state is not considered
Further difficulties can arise in cases in which a per- to be a “judicial authority” pursuant to Article 6(1) of
son prosecuted in one Member State argues that he Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the Europe-
was previously convicted in another Member State for an Arrest Warrant (Framework Decision on the EAW)
the same offence. The Member State may be unable to by the authorities of the executing Member State.
confirm this allegation as a result of differing national
standards for ascertaining the identity of a person, re-
Cases concerning multiple EAW requests
sulting in inaccurate recording of his personal details.
Under Article 16(2) of the Framework Decision on
the EAW, the executing judicial authority may seek
European Arrest Warrants
the advice of Eurojust when deciding which of the
EAWs issued by two or more Member States for the
In 2012, 259 cases concerning the execution of EAWs same person shall be executed. The number of times
were registered at Eurojust, amounting to 16.8% of in which Eurojust was formally asked to provide ad-
all cases registered at Eurojust. The vast majority vice increased to six cases in 2012 compared to four
(252) related to the facilitation of the execution of in 2011. Eurojust’s expertise in this field, whether
EAWs. Following the trend of previous years, the Pol- through negotiation or direct contact with the con-
ish Desk made the greatest number of requests, fol- cerned authorities, is regularly sought and provided
lowed by the Belgian and Swedish Desks. The Span- at coordination meetings.
ish Desk received the greatest number of requests,
followed by the German and Polish Desks.
In all six cases referred to above, Eurojust assisted
in securing a consensus between the Member States
The College also dealt with two more general issues involved on the question of which EAW should be
related to the application of the EAW. The first issue given priority, including, when at stake, arrange-
concerned the gathering of information on whether ments for subsequent or temporary surrender of the
an authority in the Member State that does not have sought person. In all six cases, Eurojust’s advice was
the power to issue domestic warrants has the author- followed; Eurojust’s
Guidelines for internal proceed-
ity to issue EAWs, and on whether the authorities/
ings on the provision of Eurojust’s opinion in case of
courts of the Member State have refused to execute
competing European Arrest Warrants, adopted in June
an EAW because the authority that issued it does not 2011, were applied. In one case, an agreement on
have the power to issue domestic arrest warrants. the priority to be given was reached at a coordina-
The second issue considered was whether, since the tion meeting and the domestic court deciding on the
EAW case example. While dealing with the execution of three Greek EAWs concerning a Swedish na-
tional, Belgian authorities received a new EAW issued by the Cyprus authorities related to the same
person. With the new request, the authorities were forced to suspend the execution of the Greek EAWs
(already allowed by the Belgian Court of Appeal).
The Belgian Federal Prosecutor requested Eurojust’s advice on the Member State to which the indi-
vidual should be surrendered. The Belgian Desk consulted both the Greek and Cyprus Desks to gain
information on the legal possibilities, such as the option to transfer the person to the other Member
State during the investigation, prosecution or execution of sentences. The Belgian Desk also consulted
the participating Member States on the opinions of the involved home authorities.
Taking into account the information received, the Belgian Desk advised surrendering the individual to
Greece. The Belgian authorities agreed with the advice. After the acceptance of a supplementary fourth
Greek EAW, the individual concerned was surrendered to Greece, which in turn ensured the execution
of the Cyprus EAW. With the assistance of Eurojust, the three Member States involved were able to co-
ordinate the execution of the requests in a swift and efficient manner.
2012 Annual Report
21
matter followed Eurojust’s advice and quoted, in its be used in surrender procedures between Finland, Den-
judgement, the agreement reached at Eurojust during mark and Sweden. No experiences have been reported
the coordination meeting.
to Eurojust.
Cases concerning breach of time limits
Practitioners still face practical and legal issues in the
execution of EAWs. The following have been identi-
Where, in exceptional circumstances, a Member State fied by Eurojust in its casework:
cannot observe the time limits provided for in Arti-
cle 17 of the Framework Decision on the EAW, it shall
` Poor quality of the translation of the EAW.
inform Eurojust, giving the reasons for the delay. In
2012, 94 breaches of time limits were registered at
` Delay as a result of insufficient or inadequate infor-
Eurojust. Two of these cases required further action.
mation in the EAW with regard to: (i) the description
As in previous years, Ireland reported the largest
of the facts, including the nexus required to show
number of breaches. Other cases were referred by
the connection between the sought person and the
Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Spain. As not-
criminal offence; (ii) the criminal offences; (iii) the
ed in previous years, EU statistics indicate that more
sentence imposed or foreseen for all or some of the
breaches occur than are registered by Eurojust.
offences; or (iv) the aggregation of sentences into a
final sentence after the execution of the EAW issued
One case, concerning the interpretation of Article 28(2)
for the execution of several sentences.
of the Framework Decision on the EAW, gave rise to a
decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union
` Slow communication between competent authorities.
of 28 June 2012 (C-192/12). The Finnish prosecutor
dealing with the EAW proceedings requested informa-
` Delay linked to transit authorisation procedures,
tion from the UK, through Eurojust, on how to speed
as Member States have different procedural rules
up the procedure in the event that consent from the UK
and time limits in these procedures.
would be required for the surrender of the requested
person from Finland to France. The purpose of Euro-
` Cases in which the original or a certified copy of
just’s involvement was to prevent a possible breach
the translated EAW is requested through Eurojust
by Finland of the time limits under Article 17 of the
on very short notice before the EAW hearing.
Framework Decision on the EAW. Eurojust was able to
provide the necessary assistance in a timely manner.
` Delay in cases where guarantees linked with the
surrender of own nationals are required and the
The main reasons for delay in the execution of EAWs
authority competent to issue the guarantees (Minis-
were: the length of appeal proceedings, requests for
try of Justice) is different from the authority (Public
additional information, the absconding of requested
Prosecution Office) competent to issue the EAW and
persons while on bail, and the large number of EAWs.
provide additional information in relation thereto.
Issues identified in the practical application of the EAW
` Delay in the provision by the executing judicial
authorities of the information under Article 26(2)
Eurojust continued to play a significant role in fa-
of the Framework Decision on the EAW, which en-
cilitating transmission of information, in clarifying
tails a risk that the requested person is detained
legal requirements of both issuing and executing
beyond the limits foreseen in the applicable legis-
authorities, and generally in speeding up the execu-
lation of the issuing Member State.
tion of EAWs. In urgent cases, Eurojust’s assistance
has proved particularly important. In one such case,
` Legal issues linked to whether a Ministry of Justice
assistance was swiftly provided in the margins of a
is considered a judicial authority pursuant to Ar-
College plenary meeting, and in another, Eurojust was
ticle 6(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW,
able to provide advice and guidance through OCC,
and thus competent to issue EAWs.
leading to a timely surrender.
` Proportionality issues in the executing Member
On 16 October 2012, the Nordic Arrest Warrant sur-
State, linked with mandatory prosecution in the is-
render procedures between the Nordic countries (Den-
suing Member State, giving rise to excessive issuance
mark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) entered
of EAWs, with increased difficulties in cases in which
into force, meaning that the Nordic Arrest Warrant,
the dual criminality requirement is not met (Article
rather than the Framework Decision on the EAW, will
2(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW).
22 Operational activities
` Costs incurred with surrenders.
investigation; and (iii) a general perception that the
2003 Framework Decision involves additional cum-
` Delay in receiving consent to prosecute for addi- bersome formalities.
tional offences (speciality rule, Article 27 of the
Framework Decision on the EAW).
On occasion, the specific internal jurisdictional divi-
sion of some Member States brings additional diffi-
` Different approaches to sentences
in absentia culties in cases in which freezing orders relate to as-
and the right to a retrial, as not all Member States sets located in different internal jurisdictions.
have implemented Council Framework Decision
2009/299/JHA amending the Framework Deci- Difficulties occasionally also arise from the absence
sion on the EAW on the right to retrial, resulting in of a national central register/database of ongoing
possible refusal of execution of an EAW.
proceedings in cases of separate and unconnected
freezing orders with respect to the same assets.
` Use of different channels to transmit the EAW
(Supplementary Information Request at the Na- The absence of uniform implementation and use of
tional Entry (SIRENE), Interpol, Liaison Magis- the 2003 Framework Decision exacerbates a situa-
trates, European Judicial Network (EJN) and Euro- tion in which freezing (and confiscation) of assets is
just), without information that the EAW is being still not often contemplated by all Member States at
sent via a particular channel.
an early stage of investigation or prosecution of se-
rious cross-border crime. Eurojust’s relatively small
` Cases in which the person whose surrender had number of requests for facilitation of execution of
been ordered has been released on bail but failed freezing orders is a reflection of this situation.
to appear as directed.
Eurojust’s casework has identified as best practice: (i)
` Multiple EAWs, issued by different judicial author- the inclusion, within the initial request for freezing, of
ities in the same Member State, create uncertainty a request for early sale of frozen assets (when they
as to which EAW forms the basis of the surrender.
are perishable, lose value with the passage of time or
involve high management costs) in advance of confis-
cation; (ii) early consideration of administration of
Freezing orders
funds pending a final decision; and (iii) reminding na-
tional authorities of their reporting obligations under
Although transposed in most Member States, Council the 2003 Framework Decision. In one case, Eurojust’s
Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution in assistance secured the execution of freezing orders
the European Union of orders freezing property or evi- in one Member State on the same day that a number
dence (the 2003 Framework Decision) is still not widely of arrests and searches were conducted in another
used. As a consequence, judicial authorities that use the Member State.
freezing order and recognise,
inter alia, the added value
of the tight deadlines provided therein are at times con- In 2012, the College dealt with a general issue linked
fronted with counterparts in other Member States that to freezing orders, namely the gathering of informa-
are not familiar with this instrument or are unable to tion on national legislation regarding the possibility
use it. The latter rely instead on traditional LoRs in ac- of seizure of property to be used in civil proceedings
cordance with the 1959 and MLA Conventions, as well and whether the 2003 Framework Decision would
as the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on launder- be applicable. Eurojust also participated in the re-
ing, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of cent discussions of the Asset Recovery Offices (ARO)
crime, which can include requests for identification, Platform through its ARO Contact Point, and as an
freezing and confiscation of assets.
observer in the fifth round of mutual evaluations on
financial crime and financial investigations.
Eurojust’s casework in 2012 shows that this situa-
tion appears to persist as a result of: (i) the limited
scope of the 2003 Framework Decision (it does not Confiscation and asset recovery
allow for identification, freezing and confiscation
in one request); (ii) the difficulty in using a freez- Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the applica-
ing order when the evidence to be frozen, unknown tion of the principle of mutual recognition to confis-
to the issuing authorities at the time of the drafting cation orders and Framework Decision 2005/212/
of the request, comes to light at a later stage in the JHA on confiscation of crime-related proceeds,
2012 Annual Report
23
instrumentalities and property have not been fully The proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
implemented by all Member States, thereby render- and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of pro-
ing uncertain the common grounds for confiscation ceeds of crime in the European Union, currently under
and recognition of confiscation orders. Legislation in discussion, seeks to harmonise definitions of certain se-
the field of confiscation still differs significantly from rious crime areas and also seeks to partially replace the
Member State to Member State, as do specific con- 2005 Framework Decision on confiscation of crime-relat-
cepts such as extended confiscation, non-conviction- ed proceeds, instrumentalities and property. Eurojust’s
based confiscation, and value-based confiscation.
Opinion on this draft instrument was submitted to the
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Eurojust’s confiscation and asset recovery casework (LIBE Committee) of the European Parliament in 2012
remains limited and demonstrates that lengthy pro- (
see also section 2.1). Eurojust also continued to provide
cedures persist. Eurojust’s role in such cases is mainly support via the Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency
one of facilitation and mediation. Eurojust assists in the Network (CARIN), in which it participates as an observer.
clarification of legal requirements in the different ju-
risdictions and facilitates the transmission of requests.
Several successful cases in 2012 have shown Eurojust’s Controlled deliveries
assistance to be crucial. In one case, solely due to the
receipt of information provided via Eurojust, one Mem- Controlled deliveries are considered a useful investiga-
ber State secured two convictions. Its tax authorities tive tool, particularly in drug trafficking cases. The Eu-
were able to recover EUR 295 500, and the convicted rojust Decision foresees that National Members may
persons were ordered to pay a total of approximately be granted the power to authorise and coordinate con-
EUR 900 000 to the tax authorities. In another case, as trolled deliveries. To date, that power has been granted
a result of Eurojust’s assistance, ten luxury apartments only to a limited number of National Members.
were confiscated in one Member State.
In 2012, Eurojust continued to assist in identifying
With regard to the specific matter of management the competent authority and/or in solving difficulties
of frozen assets, Eurojust facilitated the exchange of linked to delays, obtaining authorisations, translating
expert opinions from tax authorities in two Member LoRs, overcoming procedural difficulties or through
States in a case involving EUR 110 000 in frozen as- coordination meetings facilitating the setting up of
sets. In a non-conviction-based confiscation case, a such investigative tools in complex cases. Eurojust
confiscation order in the amount of EUR 580 000 was has also been of assistance in the prevention of the
ne
made following Eurojust’s assistance.
bis in idem issue and, generally, in urgent cases.
Recurring difficulties arise in relation to the nexus re- Difficulties have been encountered as a result of: (i) dis-
quired to show that the assets belong to the suspect parities in substantive and procedural requirements
(except in extended confiscation cases, in which the for authorising controlled deliveries; (ii) time pressure
burden of proof is lower), and the excessive length for the setting up and carrying out of controlled deliv-
of proceedings concerning the sale of confiscated as- eries; and (iii) identification of the competent national
sets, aggravated by the participation of administra- authority for judicial authorisation of controlled deliv-
tive authorities and perceived unnecessary bureau- eries, exacerbated in cases where the transit through
cracy. Eurojust’s casework shows that the consent of Member States other than those directly involved in
the suspect (in jurisdictions where the possibility of the case also requires authorisation. The authorisation
plea bargaining is foreseen) and the early sale of cer- for controlled deliveries, as a specific investigative tool,
tain types of frozen assets in advance of confiscation is, in some Member States, made at judicial level, while
can speed up the confiscation process.
in others it lies within the competence of the police.
1.3 Eurojust’s activities in crime priority areas
Terrorism
The cases referred to Eurojust in 2012 did not appear
to be linked to any single crime category, but showed
Membership in a terrorist organisation was the crime a large variety in their crime type, including crimes
most frequently referred to in Eurojust terrorism cases. against life, limb or personal freedom.
24 Operational activities
In the framework of the World Justice Project, an inde-
Crime statistics
2012
2011
pendent initiative focused on strengthening the rule of
law worldwide, Eurojust prepared an article,
Strength-
Number of cases registered
32
27
ening Inter-State Cooperation – the Eurojust Experience,
Number of coordination meetings
3
1
which was published in Counter-Terrorism: Interna-
tional Law and Practice in January 2012. The article pro-
vides recommendations on how judicial cooperation
On the basis of the input and recommendations of Euro- should be conducted to ensure national and regional
just’s national correspondents for terrorism matters, Eu- security imperatives while respecting the rule of law.
rojust developed the concept and contents of its Terror-
ism Convictions Monitor (TCM), providing an overview On 20 June, Eurojust held its annual strategic meet-
of terrorism-related judicial developments in Member ing on terrorism. The meeting focused on the phe-
States as well as judicial analysis of selected cases.
nomenon of the lone individual involved in terror-
ism (“lone wolf”) and social networks in a terrorism
Special attention was given to certain aspects of context. The results of a questionnaire on this topic
analysis and additional focus areas are envisaged for were shared and relevant case examples from several
future issues of the report. The TCM is based on in- Member States and Norway were discussed and pre-
formation shared with Eurojust resulting from the sented by practitioners.
implementation of Council Decision 2005/671/JHA
of 20 September 2005, as well as open sources. Three On 11 and 12 December, a practitioners’ workshop,
issues of the TCM were published in 2012.
co-organised by Eurojust and Europol, reunited
counter-terrorism specialists from India and the Eu-
Eurojust contributed to Europol’s TE-SAT Report, ropean Union. The objective of the workshop was to
providing quantitative and qualitative analysis of promote judicial cooperation by defining common in-
terrorism-related court decisions and an overview of terests and reflecting on standards of cooperation. A
the amendments of terrorism-related legislation in full day was dedicated to judicial cooperation matters
the Member States.
and common counter-terrorism cases. In an attempt
Terrorism case example. In a combined bombing and mass shooting in Norway on 22 July 2011, a lone
individual caused the death of 77 people. Investigations were launched into the first major terrorist at-
tack in Europe perpetrated by a single individual and the fourth largest terrorist attack in Europe since
World War II.
Eurojust provided valuable assistance with several aspects of this case during the investigation and trial phases.
With the involvement of the Norwegian Liaison Prosecutor at Eurojust and the Latvian and UK National Desks,
banking information was swiftly obtained from Latvia and Antigua and Barbuda. The Polish National Desk
made enquiries regarding an LoR to hear a witness. The Spanish and the UK National Desks willingly shared
their expertise in handling such a large terrorism case. Direct contact between the French Desk and the Norwe-
gian Liaison Prosecutor contributed to the effective execution of two LoRs to France regarding the identifica-
tion, location and hearing of a witness. The Liaison Prosecutor for the USA provided assistance in the execution
of an urgent request for a hearing of a witness by videoconference in the USA during the trial proceedings.
The assistance provided by Eurojust was a valuable component of the international cooperation in this
case. The assistance consisted of continuous facilitation of MLA requests and allowed direct personal
contact between Member States and third States through National Desks and Liaison Prosecutors at
Eurojust. The efforts of Eurojust contributed to efficient, effective and time-saving judicial cooperation
between competent national authorities.
Court hearings were held in Norway from April to June 2012. On 24 August 2012, the accused was
found guilty and sentenced to the maximum prison sentence in Norway, preventive detention for 21
years, with a minimum sentence of 10 years.
2012 Annual Report
25
to collect pertinent judicial information prior to the
Sweden, France and Italy, while the Netherlands, Spain
debates, Eurojust had disseminated a questionnaire
and Belgium were the most requested.
on these matters to the counter-terrorism authorities
in the Member States.
In January, Eurojust published the final report on its
strategic project,
Enhancing the work of Eurojust in
drug trafficking cases, highlighting the complexity of
Drug trafficking
the activities required to coordinate the investigation
of high-level drug trafficking cases. Preliminary find-
Crime statistics
2012
2011
ings of this project were discussed during a strategic
seminar in Krakow in October 2011. The final report
Number of cases registered
263
242
touches upon the various difficulties encountered in
the exchange of information and coordination, con-
Number of coordination meetings
59
50
flicts of jurisdiction, execution of MLA requests and
Number of JITs
13
7
EAWs, JITs, controlled deliveries, asset recovery and
relations with third States.
Analysis of the crime type confirms that criminal or-
Key recommendations for actions in the fight against
ganisation and money laundering are very often linked drug trafficking resulting from the report were pre-
to drug trafficking cases referred to Eurojust. The sented to the EU’s Standing Committee on Operational
Member States most heavily involved in this crime type Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI) in June. On the
by requesting judicial cooperation at Eurojust were basis of this analysis, Eurojust formulated an Action
Drug trafficking case example. Several drug trafficking distribution networks in Austria, Germany, Bel-
gium and the Netherlands had been set up by an OCG from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Large transports of heroin were organised from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to Belgium
and the Netherlands. Once the drugs reached western Europe, the heroin was distributed to Frankfurt and
Vienna in quantities of up to 5 kg. Possible links appeared to exist with the UK, Sweden, Denmark, France
and Switzerland. Thanks to police cooperation between Austria and Germany and intensive investiga-
tions, large quantities of heroin were seized in both countries. While several low-level members of the
OCG were arrested, they were replaced within 2-3 days. To step up the common efforts in fighting the OCG,
the parties agreed that Eurojust should coordinate the investigations in the Member States, and promote
the initiation of investigations and prosecutions in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
At the onset of Eurojust’s involvement in the investigations, neither the Netherlands nor the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had opened national criminal proceedings. As the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia does not allow extradition of its own nationals, and since most of the suspects
were residing there, Eurojust held two coordination meetings to encourage their involvement and to
speed up the investigations. As a result of the first coordination meeting held at Eurojust, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia initiated criminal proceedings. Coordinated investigations resulted in
the arrest and conviction of the main suspects and several other perpetrators.
The OCG subsequently rebuilt its network and a third coordination meeting was held at Eurojust to dis-
cuss how to foster cooperation. Several legal problems, caused by differences in the legal systems of the
involved countries, posed an obstacle to disclosure of information and full involvement of the potential
partners. This third coordination meeting provided a forum for an in-depth debate on how to overcome
any legal issues and to identify potential solutions combining the use of several judicial instruments.
After consultation and agreement at national level on the proposed measures to be adopted, a fourth
coordination meeting at Eurojust resulted in the setting up of a JIT between Austria, Germany, the Neth-
erlands and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that is currently active. The JIT received finan-
cial support through Eurojust’s JIT Funding Project.
26 Operational activities
Plan 2012 - 2013, with recommendations to improve
its casework in cooperation with national authorities.
THB case example. France initiated a case
In the context of the European Multidisciplinary Plat-
of trafficking in human beings involving the
form Against Crime Threats (EMPACT), Eurojust par-
sexual exploitation of Bulgarian nationals.
ticipated, among others, in four projects related to
Members of an OCG recruited victims in
drug trafficking with special focus on synthetic drugs,
Bulgaria for forced prostitution in several
trafficking by West African organised crime groups,
European countries. The French authorities
trafficking through the Western Balkans, and traffick-
requested the support of Eurojust to identi-
ing in container shipments.
fy possible parallel proceedings in Belgium
and to facilitate the setting up of a JIT. Fol-
Eurojust representatives contributed to a prepara-
lowing a coordination meeting at Eurojust,
tory study for an impact assessment on a new legis-
the Belgian authorities started a prelimi-
lative instrument replacing Council Framework Deci-
nary investigation targeting two suspects
sion 2004/757/JHA on illicit drug trafficking.
appearing in the French proceedings.
Eurojust was represented at the European Monitoring
A JIT was set up involving France, Bulgaria,
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
Sec-
Eurojust and Europol to facilitate the ex-
ond European conference on drug supply indicators that
change of information and evidence. The
took place in Lisbon in November. Formal negotiations
JIT received financial support through Eu-
for a Memorandum of Understanding between Euro-
rojust’s JIT Funding Project. The investiga-
just and the EMCDDA were initiated at the end of 2012.
tions focused both on the human trafficking
part of the criminal activity and the finan-
In the context of cooperation with Latin American
cial flows resulting from it. In this regard,
countries, Eurojust attended the Euro-Latin Ameri-
Eurojust’s analysis of financial transactions
can Parliamentary Assembly’s high-level seminar in
through Western Union remittances was
Mexico in February on the
Fight Against Drug Traf-
particularly helpful in identifying the illicit
ficking and Organised Crime in Europe and Latin
profits sent from France to the main sus-
America. In addition, cooperation with the Network
pects residing in Bulgaria.
of Prosecutors against Organized Crime in Central
America (REFCO), an initiative of the United Nations
After thorough investigation by the JIT, France
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), was explored.
initiated a common action day. Due to the high
Cooperation with the Ibero-American Network of In-
level of mobility of the OCG, Belgian and Pol-
ternational Legal Cooperation (IberRed) was fruitful.
ish authorities also participated in the action
day. A coordination centre was set up at Euro-
just with the participation of the Eurojust Na-
Trafficking in human beings
tional Desks involved, the Case Analysis Unit
and Europol, ensuring real-time decision-
making and information exchange. The coor-
Crime statistics
2012
2011
dination centre also facilitated the issuance of
four EAWs during the action day and provided
Number of cases registered
60
79
analysis and cross-checking of information,
Number of coordination meetings
20
24
which identified links with other investiga-
tions in the European Union. Documentary
Number of JITs
6
6
evidence and mobile telephones were seized
in 13 searches, six EAWs were executed and
Analysis of the crime type shows that approximately half
nine people were arrested.
of the cases dealt with THB as a stand-alone offence.
Membership in a criminal organisation was frequently
involved in THB cases referred to Eurojust, followed by
illegal immigration. The Member States most heavily in-
The 2011 Joint Statement of JHA Agencies strove to
volved in this crime type by initiating cases at Eurojust address THB in a coordinated, coherent and com-
are Germany and the UK, followed by Bulgaria and Spain; prehensive manner and resulted in Eurojust’s com-
the Member States most requested for cooperation in this mitment to increase its efforts to assist Member
field are Romania, Bulgaria and the Netherlands.
States, in cooperation with other agencies, in THB
2012 Annual Report
27
investigations and prosecutions, and in coordinating
crimes most often connected to fraud in cases where it
cross-border action.
was not a stand-alone crime. The Member States most
active in initiating cases of this crime type were Aus-
As a follow-up to this Joint Statement and in line with
tria, Czech Republic and Hungary; those most frequent-
the EU Strategy towards the Eradication of THB 2012
ly requested were the UK, Spain and Germany.
- 2016, Eurojust initiated a strategic project,
Euro-
just’s Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, to * In 2012, Eurojust applied new criteria to the statisti-
strengthen and improve cooperation between national cal classification of Eurojust cases by crime type. These
judicial authorities in the fight against THB; improve changes explain the apparent increase in fraud cases.
the efficient use of the existing legal instruments; in-
tensify efforts in prosecuting these crimes at national Eurojust participated in an expert meeting organised
level; and enhance the involvement of Eurojust in THB by Europol within the framework of Europol’s Missing
cases. The project was based on (i) analysis of the re- Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud Focal Point.
plies to a questionnaire sent to all Member States, Cro-
atia and Norway; (ii) analysis of specific Eurojust cases
on THB in the period 1 January 2008 - 31 December
2011; and (iii) conclusions reached as a result of a stra-
Fraud case example. Judicial authorities in
tegic meeting on THB held at Eurojust in April 2012.
Sweden asked the Swedish Desk at Eurojust
The outcomes were used to produce a
Final Report and
to set up a coordination meeting to discuss
Action Plan for 2012 – 2016, presented at the European
a number of legal obstacles concerning in-
Anti-Trafficking Day in Brussels on 18 October 2012.
vestigation into an advanced case of “boiler
room” fraud, known as “high-yield invest-
Eurojust supported training initiatives organised by
ment fraud”. The case had links to Finland,
Frontex and the Eurpean Police College (CEPOL) by
Iceland, Cyprus and the UK. In Sweden, 19
providing experience and expertise. Eurojust estab-
victims, who had been defrauded of a total
lished contacts with the UN Informal Group on Traf-
of EUR 800 000, were identified.
ficking in Persons and with the Trafficking in Persons
Platform established by the International Association
The coordination meeting held at Eurojust
of Prosecutors (IAP).
had the following objectives: to exchange
information on evidence and intelligence
Eurojust participated in the EMPACT project target-
gathered in the countries involved, to estab-
ing THB, and has also participated in the project
The
lish which country was in the best position
introduction of the requirements for establishing JITs to
to prosecute the case, and to decide on the
fight THB in South Eastern Europe, led by Bulgaria and
possibility of prolonging the bilateral JIT
Slovenia, with a focus on both judicial cooperation and
agreement between Sweden and Finland.
coordination, as well as on the protection of victims.
Following the coordination meeting, the bi-
lateral JIT agreement between Sweden and
Fraud
Finland was prolonged and extended to the
UK, Cyprus and Iceland. Eurojust facilitated
Crime statistics
2012
2011
the process of amending the JIT agreement
and provided the necessary EU funding
Number of cases registered *
through the JIT Funding Project. At the co-
*
Total figures for 2012 cannot be compared
382
218
ordination meeting, all countries agreed
with previous years – see explanation below
that Sweden would take the lead in investi-
gating and prosecuting this fraud case, thus
Number of coordination meetings
33
58
avoiding a conflict of jurisdiction.
Number of JITs
11
4
Swindling (86 cases) and VAT fraud (58 cases) figured
most prominently in 2012. Analysis of the crime type Corruption
shows that the majority of cases (256) dealt with fraud
as a stand-alone offence. However, organised crime, The majority of cases were linked to money laundering
forgery of documents and money laundering were the and fraud.
28 Operational activities
identifying and reducing the cost of corruption in Public
Crime statistics
2012
2011
Procurement involving EU Funds. Eurojust provided its
expertise in the area of investigation and prosecution.
Number of cases registered
30
26
Number of coordination meetings
7
19
Eurojust participated in the
Euronews television broad-
Number of JITs
3
1
cast debate on corruption in September 2012. On this
occasion, the role of Eurojust in fighting corruption
was emphasized, as were concrete proposals to ad-
Several cases have been handled by Eurojust concern- dress problems faced by prosecutors in the investiga-
ing public procurement involving EU funds or tender tion and prosecution of corruption. These problems
procedures.
and Eurojust’s proposals had been discussed by the
Consultative Forum of Prosecutors General and Direc-
Eurojust participated in an expert review panel that tors of Public Prosecutions of the Member States of the
looked at the findings of the Commission-funded European Union during a debate held at Eurojust after
study,
Development of an EU Evaluation Mechanism in the EU anti-corruption package was adopted in 2011.
the area of Anti-Corruption with a particular focus on The key message conveyed was that Eurojust is actively
committed to the fight against corruption and that the
future development of Eurojust, in light of the TFEU, is
designed to increase its efficiency and effectiveness.
Corruption case example. The representa-
tives of a Finnish company producing ar-
moured vehicles were suspected of having
Cybercrime
paid bribes to Croatian government officials
and decision-makers. The Finnish authorities
Crime statistics
2012
2011
had opened an investigation on suspicion of
aggravated bribery, after having discovered
Number of cases registered
42
24
that the financial transactions related to this
deal were similar to another deal between
Number of coordination meetings
5
10
the same company and the Slovenian author-
Number of JITs
2
2
ities. An Austrian company acted as agent in
the transactions between the two parties, re-
ceiving payments from the vehicle producer.
Analysis of the crime type confirms that organised crime,
The Finnish authorities had reason to believe
fraud and money laundering were often linked with cy-
that the bribery offence was committed as an
bercrime cases referred to Eurojust. A major proportion
advance payment related to the deal.
of these cases concerned phishing or child abuse images.
The Member States most involved in this crime type as
A JIT was set up with the support of Eurojust.
requesting countries were Romania, Belgium, Estonia,
The JIT allowed the competent Finnish, Aus-
Germany, France and Italy; the Member States most of-
trian and Croatian authorities to jointly carry
ten requested for judicial cooperation were Italy, the UK
out effective pre-trial investigations. Within
and Germany, followed by Spain and the Netherlands. In
the framework of the JIT, the national au-
the reporting period, Eurojust hosted one coordination
thorities were also able to conduct the nec-
centre concerning cybercrime.
essary interviews, use coercive means and
take other required investigative actions.
Eurojust again participated in the European Cybercrime
Eurojust hosted two coordination meetings,
Platform, including the Internet Crime Reporting Online
enabling the participants in the JIT to agree
System (I-CROS) and Europol’s Cyborg Focal Point.
on the drafting of an operational plan to be
signed by all JIT parties. The support of Eu-
In line with the Council Conclusions on the estab-
rojust proved to be important in enabling
lishment of the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3),
the parties to the investigations to cooper-
which emphasized the importance of ensuring that
ate effectively and to achieve mutual trust.
EC3 works closely with Eurojust, the College of Euro-
In 2012, Eurojust continued to facilitate the
just appointed a representative of the College to the
work of the national authorities in this case.
EC3 Programme Board in December 2012. During the
first EC3 Programme Board meeting, Eurojust pro-
posed to act as a focal point for judicial stakeholders
2012 Annual Report
29
Cybercrime case example. Since August 2010, an OCG had been using forged and stolen credit card data to
pay for goods purchased from German internet sites. These goods, which were predominantly high-quality
electronics such as tablets, digital cameras, flat screen televisions and mobile telephones, as well as designer
clothing and watches, were sent to goods traders in Germany, who then forwarded these packages to north-
ern Europe (particularly Estonia).
Two coordination meetings were held at Eurojust. At the first meeting in 2011, a JIT agreement was signed
between Estonia and Germany to identify the suspects and dismantle the OCG. The JIT members also ex-
changed information to facilitate the prosecutions in both countries. The Estonian judicial authorities need-
ed information from the German authorities regarding the predicate crimes related to money laundering
committed in Germany. Due to differences in criminal procedure, the German authorities had produced the
information for the purposes of the German proceedings, which did not conform to Estonian legal require-
ments. Within the framework of the JIT, the problems were resolved and additional documentation was
swiftly drawn up by the German authorities, enabling the Estonian authorities to satisfy the evidentiary re-
quirements of their criminal procedure.
As a result of the investigations, goods with a value estimated at EUR 250 000 were seized in Germany in
2011. The total damage the offenders caused was estimated at EUR 3 million. In the Estonian judicial pro-
ceedings, 27 suspects were identified and charged with money laundering. In 2012, a second coordination
meeting was held at Eurojust, during which the authorities of the involved countries indicated that the inves-
tigations had revealed links to Russia, Italy, the UK, Austria and Lithuania.
and to investigate all possible links between EC3 and
laundering in cases where money laundering did not
cybercrime training for the judiciary in the Member
appear as a stand-alone offence. The Member States
States. The College of Eurojust decided to establish a
Task Force on cybercrime and cyber-related crime at
Eurojust, as well as to second a staff member to EC3
to ensure coverage of the judicial dimension.
Money laundering case example. Authorities
in Spain and the UK were investigating an elab-
As Eurojust’s sphere of action also extends to coopera-
orate money laundering scheme. The illegal
tion with third States, Eurojust hosted a workshop on
activities included the importation, acquisition
cybercrime within the context of the
Workshop on the
and distribution of controlled drugs. Some of
application of the Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradi-
the methods used by the OCG to launder more
tion Agreements between the European Union and the
than EUR 2 million included mortgage fraud,
United States of America, held on 25 and 26 October.
fraudulent sales of vehicles and the acquisition
of assets in both Spain and the UK.
Money laundering
The goal of the investigation was to identify
the investments of the OCG in Spain and to pro-
Crime statistics
2012
2011
ceed with the seizure of assets. Eurojust facili-
tated the information exchange between Spain
Number of cases registered
144
122
and the UK, enabling the Spanish authorities to
identify additional properties owned by mem-
Number of coordination meetings
34
27
bers of the OCG based in Spain. Europol’s anal-
Number of JITs
8
4
ysis of the data helped to identify the relation-
ships between the members and associates of
the OCG. Following two coordination meet-
Analysis shows that a significant number of cases (64)
ings, the Spanish authorities arrested several
dealt with money laundering as a stand-alone offence.
suspects and seized their assets.
Fraud, organised crime and drug trafficking were the
crime categories most frequently associated with money
30 Operational activities
most active in initiating cases were Austria, Cyprus and actively as a member of the network’s core group in
the UK. The most requested Member States were Italy, the creation of the virtual community set up for prac-
the Netherlands and France.
titioners in this area.
Eurojust attended meetings of the Financial Action Dealing with the disposition of the proceeds of or-
Task Force (FATF) and participated in the expert ganised crime remains a concern for Eurojust, as ad-
meeting organised by Europol within the framework dressed during the seminar,
Confiscation and Organ-
of its Sustrans Focal Point.
ised Crime: procedures and perspectives in international
judicial cooperation, held in Palermo in May.
(Mobile) organised crime groups
Crime statistics
2012
2011
OCG case example. Italian authorities were
investigating an OCG involved in appropri-
Number of cases registered
231
197
ating heavy-duty vehicles (tractors, semi-
Number of coordination meetings
43
56
trailers, trucks, etc.) through embezzlement
Number of JITs
5
6
and simulation of theft to the detriment of
leasing companies, causing losses of sev-
eral million euros. The license plates and
Analysis of the crime type shows that a significant num-
registration numbers were altered and the
ber of cases (68) dealt with organised crime as a stand-
vehicles subsequently sold in eastern Eu-
alone offence. In cases where this was not a stand-alone
rope, North Africa, Albania, Turkey, Poland
offence, drug trafficking was the crime type most asso-
and Saudi Arabia. The OCG was operating in
ciated with organised crime, followed by fraud, crimes
Italy, Austria and Germany.
against life, limb or personal freedom and THB. The
Member States that most often registered a case linked
The Italian authorities requested the sup-
to organised crime were Italy, Austria and Bulgaria;
port of the Italian National Desk at Eurojust
the Member States most frequently requested for coop-
to extend the inquiries to these countries.
eration were Italy, Belgium and the UK.
Eurojust was requested to arrange a si-
Organised crime groups (OCG) continue to be pre-
multaneous execution of EAWs and search
sent in Eurojust casework, not only as a stand-alone
warrants. The involved National Desks co-
feature, but also as a cross-cutting characteristic that
ordinated the actions with their national
adds a more serious component to other crimes.
authorities and agreed on a common ac-
tion day in December 2011. On that day, 13
To ensure alignment with EU priorities, College De-
arrests were made in Italy, one in Austria
cision 2012-10 on Eurojust’s operational priorities
and one in Germany, and a large number of
2012-2013 introduced (mobile) organised crime
searches were also carried out.
groups as a distinct category of organised crime. This
category refers to itinerant criminal networks oper-
After the actions, the support of Eurojust was
ating across the European Union, usually specialised
required to facilitate the execution of addi-
in crime areas such as burglary, robbery of armoured
tional MLA requests and to discuss the best
vehicles, and metal theft.
way to coordinate criminal procedures in the
affected jurisdictions to avoid
ne bis in idem
Eurojust promoted multi-disciplinary approaches to
issues. One of the suspects was arrested in
organised crime. A strategic seminar jointly organised
her home country, but could not be extradited
with the Danish EU Presidency,
A Multidisciplinary Ap-
according to national law, and hence would
proach to Organised Crime: Administrative Measures,
need to be prosecuted in that jurisdiction. To
Judicial Follow-Up and the Role of Eurojust, was held in
address these matters, a coordination meet-
Copenhagen in March.
ing was arranged in March 2012, where the
parties agreed on transferring the Italian pro-
Eurojust also participated in the meetings of the In-
ceedings to the Austrian authorities.
formal Network on the administrative approach to
prevent and fight organised crime, and contributed
2012 Annual Report
31
Illegal immigration
Crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests
Crime statistics
2012
2011
Crime statistics
2012
2011
Number of cases registered
29
31
Number of cases registered
27
21
Number of coordination meetings
18
13
Number of JITs
4
2
Eurojust paid particular attention to the area of
crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests (so-called
PIF offences). As with other crime areas, Eurojust
Analysis of the crime type shows that approximately provided assistance to national authorities by facili-
half of the cases dealt with illegal immigration as a tating the prompt execution of LoRs and coordinat-
stand-alone offence. THB, organised crime and forgery ing the steps to be taken in investigations and pros-
of documents were the crimes most often associated ecutions. For example, Eurojust hosted coordination
with illegal immigration in cases where it was not a meetings, facilitated the freezing and confiscation of
stand-alone crime. The Member States most active the proceeds of crime and handled urgent requests,
in initiating cases were France, Austria and Italy; the particularly when national statutory time limitations
Member States most often requested for cooperation were approaching.
were Italy, the Netherlands and the UK.
In Eurojust’s reply of June 2012 to the European Com-
As stated above, Eurojust’s operational priorities are mission’s public consultation,
Protecting the EU’s fi-
in line with EU priorities and now include illegal im-
nancial interests and enhancing prosecutions, Eurojust
migration as a priority. This crime type is included for highlighted that, from a judicial cooperation perspec-
the first time in our Annual Report.
tive, problems encountered in the protection of the
EU’s financial interests may result from differences
Eurojust participated in the EMPACT project dealing in criminal proceedings in the Member States, such
with illegal immigration.
as statutory limitations and rules on the gathering of
Illegal immigration case example. Finnish border authorities initiated an investigation in December
2010, after the arrival at a Finnish airport of two females with counterfeit Indian passports, who were
accompanied by an Indian male. After a preliminary investigation, the authorities uncovered a very
active OCG that facilitated illegal immigration from Sri Lanka into the European Union. The Finnish au-
thorities suspected the OCG of facilitating the illegal entry of people from Sri Lanka to France, frequently
using a route through the United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Tanzania, Turkey and Finland. Some of the il-
legal immigrants used counterfeit British passports produced in Thailand to travel to Canada.
The Finnish authorities requested assistance from Eurojust to set up a JIT with France. Despite the dif-
ferences between the JIT approval processes in both Member States, the JIT was established during a
coordination meeting held at Eurojust in September 2011. The JIT’s legal framework allowed a prompt
exchange of information for judicial purposes without the need for lengthy rogatory procedures. Both
the language barrier and the necessity for translations were likely to create obstacles. Eurojust hosted
three coordination meetings, which helped build mutual trust, exchange information and overcome lan-
guage barriers.
In addition, a coordination centre was set up at Eurojust in February 2012 to support the simultaneous
execution of the operation in Finland, France and Belgium. The coordination centre was in direct com-
munication with a Europol operational centre, which was set up in Paris. The two centres allowed for
real-time exchange of information and evidence between police and judicial authorities in the countries
concerned, and immediate analysis of the data collected. During the common action day, 23 searches
were carried out and 27 people were arrested. After the common action day, Eurojust continued to fol-
low developments to ensure the best outcome at judicial level.
32 Operational activities
statistical data and the legal analysis of Eurojust’s
casework related to PIF offences. Eurojust follows
Crimes affecting the EU’s financial in-
with interest the
Proposal for a Directive of the Euro-
terests case example. Italian authorities
pean Parliament and of the Council on the fight against
investigated a criminal association of sev-
fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of
eral Italian suspects involved in tax evasion.
criminal law.
These suspects had, while acting on behalf
of various foreign companies, signed a deed
On 14 September 2012, Eurojust submitted a detailed
of conveyance for the transfer of shares of an
response to the House of Lords:
Call for evidence on
Italian company operating in Siena to a third
EU Policies and actions to combat fraud against the fi-
party, a company registered in Bermuda, to
nancial interests of the EU.
evade taxes in Italy. The tax evasion scheme
also involved American and Portuguese
companies, both operating as subsidiaries
of their mother company based in Bermuda.
Contact Point for Child Protection at Eurojust
The capital gains of both companies were
transferred to the company in Bermuda.
Eurojust’s casework shows that the most frequent
types of crimes affecting children were pornog-
Eurojust’s assistance was requested by the
raphy, sexual abuse, abduction, THB and crimes
Italian authorities to facilitate the execution of
against life. Eurojust continued to take the lead in
MLA requests addressed to the competent au-
coordinating information and advising on possible
thorities in the USA and Portugal to acquire all
action in the transnational investigation and pros-
the relevant information and documentation
ecution of serious crimes against children referred
proving the fictitious nature of both subsidiar-
to Eurojust for assistance. The activities involved
ies. Thanks to Eurojust’s speedy intervention,
frequent contact with the National Desks for the
a quick response from the Portuguese author-
purposes of,
inter alia, exchanging relevant infor-
ities to the Italian MLA request was obtained,
mation and encouraging the national competent
authorities to refer more cross-border cases in-
which resulted in the full payment of tax li-
volving crimes against children to Eurojust.
abilities of the investigated Italian company
within the time limits of the Italian prelimi-
Eurojust dealt with 27 cases of crimes against chil-
nary investigation. The immediate reaction of
dren, including three cases registered by Norway.
Eurojust and the Portuguese authorities ena-
At the end of 2012, the Contact Point participated
bled the Italian authorities to recover EUR 67
in the official launch of two important EU and in-
million in unpaid taxes.
ternational tools created to better protect children
from serious crimes: (1) the New European Finan-
cial Coalition against Commercial Sexual Exploita-
tion of Children Online, a project that addresses
evidence. In addition, lack of resources and speciali-
old and new online commercial distribution prac-
sation at national level may create practical difficul-
tices of child sexual abuse material by targeting
ties in fighting crimes affecting the EU’s financial
payments and ICT systems used to run illegal op-
interests. In serious crime cases, cooperation and co-
erations; and (2) the Global Alliance to fight child
sexual abuse online, which seeks better identifica-
ordination between national competent authorities
tion of and assistance to child victims and effective
at an early stage are essential. When requested, Eu-
prosecution of perpetrators. Eurojust participated
rojust provides these types of assistance to national
in Europol’s Annual Sexual Exploitation Experts
competent authorities.
Conference and the ICLN 11th Annual Conference
on Combating Cybercrime.
Eurojust experienced difficulties in gathering reliable
statistics for these crimes, mainly due to the lack of a
The Eurojust Decision includes an obligation for
clear definition of a PIF offence at EU level, a situation
Member States to inform Eurojust of complex
that results in different views, both in the Member
cross-border cases involving sexual exploitation of
States and, as a consequence, at the National Desks,
children and child pornography. Since 2004, Euro-
of what constitutes such an offence.
just has registered 187 cases concerning child vic-
tims, an additional nine cases were registered by
To address this problem, the College adopted meas-
Norway, and one case was registered by the USA.
ures in December 2012 to improve the gathering of
2012 Annual Report
33
Crimes against children case example. The Italian National Desk requested 11 Member States plus
Norway, the USA, Europol and Interpol to support an Italian investigation into the distribution of porno-
graphic material involving minors. An Italian suspect was managing a social network, hosted on servers
located in the USA, which served as a worldwide exchange platform for images and videos of children
under the age of 14 years.
Eurojust hosted two coordination meetings, in January and February 2012, and as a result coordinated
actions were agreed upon and scheduled immediately. Users were identified via their IP addresses in 12
Member States and Norway, Turkey, Ukraine, the USA and Asia.
Eurojust was requested to coordinate the searches to be carried out in Member States through interna-
tional judicial cooperation tools, supported by Europol and Interpol, to preserve evidence and to dis-
mantle the network. A coordination centre was set up at Eurojust with the active involvement of France,
Portugal, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Italy.
As a result of these efforts, 112 people were identified and indicted for criminal association, 10
persons were arrested worldwide, a large number of house searches were conducted and evidence
was seized. The US authorities closed the social network and seized its content to ensure that it is
available as evidence.
1.4 Joint investigation teams
In 2012, Eurojust continued to provide support and cially where specific clauses need to be added to
assistance to practitioners in the setting up and run- the standard models; (ii) offering advice to national
ning of JITs. In the reporting period, there were 78 ac- authorities as to whether this tool is appropriate in
tive JITs, with 62 JITs receiving funding from Eurojust. concrete cases; (iii) identifying suitable cases for
JITs; (iv) offering information on different proce-
National Members participated in 47 newly created dural systems; (v) supporting JITs via coordination
JITs, some of which concerned more than one crime meetings; and (vi) providing coordination during
type. National Members participated either in their operational activities on action days.
capacities as national competent authorities or on
behalf of Eurojust. The JITs addressed the most Eurojust’s casework indicates that legal and practi-
serious types of criminality, such as drug traffick- cal difficulties still affect the proper functioning of
ing, money laundering, THB and fraud. In addition, the JIT tool. The following obstacles were identi-
Eurojust received 14 notifications from Member fied: (i) different levels or pace of the investigations
States in accordance with Article 13(5) of the Euro- in the Member States involved in a JIT; (ii) absence
just Decision.
of a parallel investigation in those Member States
that require such an investigation to enable them
The increasing use of JITs facilitated by Eurojust sug- to participate in a JIT; and (iii) differences in legal
gests that practitioners are becoming more familiar systems, especially with regard to the rules for se-
with the JIT instrument, recognise the expertise of crecy of proceedings, access to case file documents
Eurojust in this field, and acknowledge the impor- (disclosure issues), time limits for data retention,
tance of the JIT Funding Project.
and the giving of evidence via videoconference or
in relation to a judicial control mechanism. Eurojust
The specific role played by Eurojust in the setting has again addressed recurrent problems related to
up and proper functioning of JITs has continued to admissibility of evidence and disclosure of informa-
relate mostly to: (i) providing support in drafting tion and has managed to successfully assist practi-
JIT agreements and operational action plans, espe- tioners in overcoming them.
34 Operational activities
Eurojust has continued to raise awareness of JITs
among practitioners by underlining the added value
of this tool, particularly in Member States with less
Illegal immigration (JIT) case example.
experience of JITs.
A JIT agreement was signed at Eurojust to
facilitate investigations in the UK and the
Eurojust and practitioners in the Member States
Netherlands into the offences of facilitation
strongly support a systematic evaluation of the JIT tool
of illegal immigration and people smug-
to enhance and improve its use and function. In 2012,
gling taking place by means of, among oth-
Eurojust’s casework showed some degree of involve-
ers, the arrangement of sham marriages,
ment in the evaluation of JITs on a case-by-case basis,
document fraud and drug offences com-
both before an extension of a JIT and after its closure.
mitted by OCGs or individuals. An OCG op-
erating in the Netherlands was involved in
Evaluation of the JIT tool was discussed during the
recruiting Dutch Antillean women to marry
8th Annual Meeting of the National Experts on Joint
Nigerian nationals in the UK and legitimise
Investigation Teams, co-organised by Eurojust and
their immigration status.
Europol, on 18-19 October. Experts agreed on the
importance of a systematic and centralised gather-
Three coordination meetings were held at
ing of JIT-related information, highlighting the need
Eurojust to exchange information on the sta-
to develop a standard template or checklist to assist
tus of the investigations in the UK and the
practitioners in JIT evaluations.
Netherlands, to discuss tactical options re-
garding the arrest phase in the Netherlands,
The involvement of national contact points of the Net-
to explore the possibilities for a strategic
work of National Experts on Joint Investigation Teams
meeting on sham marriages, and to raise
(JITs Network), either by providing support or by col-
awareness of this type of crime.
lecting and forwarding the results of evaluations to a
central point, possibly the JITs Network Secretariat,
Following two years of JIT activity, both Mem-
was considered essential to the evaluation process.
ber States reported a very successful partner-
The establishment of a web-based platform for the
ship. In the UK, the action plan resulted in 68
results of such evaluations would be a valuable tool
arrests, 56 convictions and prison sentences
to provide practitioners with up-to-date information
amounting to a total of more than 72 years.
and support. In addition to national evaluations, ex-
In the Netherlands, the main suspect was ar-
perts recognised the need for the evaluation of the
rested and surrendered to the UK.
use of the JIT tool at EU level.
Eurojust’s financial support to JIT operations
Eurojust supported a total of 62 different JITs involv-
ing 22 Member States in 2012. The most frequent
As has been strongly affirmed by practitioners in crime areas targeted by the supported JITs were
the Member States, financial and logistical support drug trafficking and THB. The Member States most
for JITs provides crucial added value to the setting active in the funding of JITs were the UK, France, Bel-
up and running of JITs within the European Union. gium, Germany, the Netherlands and Estonia.
Eurojust is widely recognised as the key player in fi-
nancial support to JITs.
On the basis of the 143 funding applications re-
ceived in 2012 (twice the number of applications
Eurojust continued its JIT Funding Project, entitled
Sup- received in 2011), Eurojust assisted with travel, ac-
porting the Greater Usage of JITs, in 2012. The project, commodation, translation and interpretation costs
based on a grant received from the European Com- related to JIT activities. In addition, a number of
mission under the programme
Prevention of and Fight mobile telephones, laptops, mobile printers and
against Crime 2007-2013, was launched in October 2010. scanners were loaned to JIT members to facilitate
their communications. The increased number of
The project, which enables Eurojust to financially funding applications received confirms the impor-
support the operational activities of JITs, will end on tance of funding availability.
30 September 2013. Eurojust is actively engaged in
seeking alternative funding solutions that would en- Further details on the JIT Funding Project can be
able Eurojust to continue its financial support to JITs. found on the Eurojust website.
2012 Annual Report
35
THB (JIT) case example. Following evidence obtained from a Bulgarian victim of human trafficking, who
had been brought to the UK via Greece under threat and was forced to work as a prostitute in the UK for
approximately one month, the UK initiated an investigation. More victims were found to have been traf-
ficked by the same suspects, and the UK authorities set up a JIT agreement with Bulgaria. The JIT received
financial support through Eurojust’s JIT Funding Project. The JIT submitted three funding applications
on the basis of which EUR 98 330 was awarded, and two laptops, one printer and a scanner were loaned.
Two coordination meetings were held at Eurojust prior to the parties signing the JIT agreement. Jurisdic-
tional issues formed the main concern, as crimes, suspects and victims were located in the UK and Bulgar-
ia. The differences in criminal procedure, such as the requirement of corroboration, constituted evidential
challenges, which were met by the JIT. The mutual interest in, and benefit of, the JIT prevailed and led to
the success of the combined efforts of both the UK and Bulgarian authorities. The work of the JIT, and the
simplified cooperation through coordination meetings at Eurojust, resulted in the identification of several
suspects and additional victims of this OCG. The main suspect was tried and received a six-year sentence.
1.5 Eurojust casework involving third States
In 2012, the assistance of third States was requested diplomatic channels, rather than central authorities,
by Eurojust on 242 occasions, an increase over previ- for the transmission of requests; and (iii) significant
ous years. The most frequently requested third States differences in legal systems. These difficulties were
were Switzerland, Norway, the USA, Croatia, Serbia, identified notably with third States with which the
Albania, Brazil and Ukraine. The main crime types in Member States concerned have not concluded bilat-
these cases were drug trafficking, fraud and money eral or multilateral agreements, or with which Euro-
laundering. Eurojust’s assistance was also requested just has not concluded a cooperation agreement.
in cases of cybercrime, corruption, organised rob-
bery, illegal immigrant smuggling and illegal trading.
The Memorandum of Understanding between Euro-
just and IberRed has facilitated cooperation between
Third States were represented on 49 occasions at Eu- the Member States and Latin American countries by
rojust coordination meetings, an increase over 2011, improving communication channels. Eurojust’s Span-
with the most frequently involved third States being ish and Portuguese Desks have played an active role
Norway (10), followed by Switzerland (9), Turkey as channels for Eurojust’s casework involving Latin
(6), the USA (5), Albania (5), the former Yugoslav Re- American countries. Among the most frequent types
public of Macedonia (3), Croatia (2) and Serbia (2).
of assistance sought are requests for information on
legal requirements and legislation, state of execution
The most frequent requests made by Eurojust to third of LoRs and extradition requests, and identification of
States were to speed up or facilitate the execution of relevant authorities and contact points.
extradition and MLA requests (e.g. execution of freez-
ing and confiscation orders, hearings by videocon-
ference, interception of communications, transfer of Liaison Prosecutors from third States
criminal proceedings, requests for criminal records), seconded to Eurojust
to clarify legal requirements and relevant legislation
or to identify contact details of competent authorities. The presence at Eurojust of Liaison Prosecutors from
Croatia, Norway and the USA has facilitated judicial co-
Eurojust’s casework shows that cooperation with operation between national competent authorities. In
third States and the assistance provided by Eurojust 2012, the Liaison Prosecutor for Croatia registered five
contact points in third States is useful and success- cases related to corruption and participated in two co-
ful. However, difficulties and delays arise from: (i) ordination meetings. The Liaison Prosecutor for Nor-
lack of direct contacts in some third States; (ii) use of way registered 41 cases dealing with drug trafficking,
36 Operational activities
fraud, murder, organised robbery, THB, terrorism, and
also three cases involving child abuse. Norway held
one coordination meeting in a drug trafficking case,
Third State case example. In 2009, the USA
and participated in 10 coordination meetings and in
began an investigation into a highly sophisti-
one JIT. The Liaison Prosecutor for the USA participat-
cated and well organised international crimi-
ed in five coordination meetings.
nal network involved in the creation and dis-
semination of graphic images and videos of
The main issues and practical difficulties in judicial
child sexual abuse throughout the world. A
cooperation identified by Liaison Prosecutors were,
private online bulletin board, hosted in the
inter alia, delays or non-execution of requests, prob-
USA, enabled members to trade explicit im-
lems with the hearing of witnesses by videoconfer-
ages and video of themselves and other adults
ence, extradition of nationals, different standards
sexually molesting children, often under the
required to access or obtain data, information and
age of 12, and often in very violent fashion.
evidence, jurisdictional issues and questions on how
Perpetrators used various measures to avoid
multiple States involved in connected investigations
detection, including aliases, proxy servers,
should proceed with prosecutions.
encryption and passwords. Countries in-
volved included Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
Best practice includes the close working relationships
Ecuador, France, Germany, Hungary, Kenya,
developed between and among the National Desks as
the Netherlands, the Philippines, Qatar, Ser-
well as with the Liaison Prosecutors. In one case involv-
bia, Sweden and Switzerland.
ing Norway and the USA, the Liaison Prosecutor for the
USA was able to immediately contact FBI officials in Eu-
In 2010, the USA expanded its investiga-
rope and the USA to request assistance in locating a wit-
tion by opening a file within Eurojust to fa-
ness, and completed arrangements for testimony within
cilitate coordination between the American
48 hours. Eurojust coordination meetings were also con-
and Member States’ investigations. The in-
sidered highly effective in coordinating criminal investi-
vestigations uncovered links to 45 different
gations and prosecutions of major importance. Another
countries, and continued to produce results
best practice involves early contact, whenever possible,
through the autumn of 2012.
to discuss how information can be obtained most effec-
tively and to facilitate the rapid transfer of evidence.
1.6 Eurojust and the practitioner networks
European Judicial Network
Copenhagen and the drafting of a joint paper to inform
judicial practitioners in the Member States about the
Eurojust participated in the 38th EJN plenary meeting in work carried out by the EJN and Eurojust and to de-
Copenhagen, which dealt with issues regarding JITs and scribe the services provided by these organisations.
cooperation with the JITs Network and the European Plans for the Task Force to contribute in the future to
network of contact points in respect of persons respon- the setting up of the ENCS and implementation of Arti-
sible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war cle 13 and 13a of the Eurojust Decision were discussed.
crimes (Genocide Network). Eurojust also participated
in the 39th EJN plenary meeting in Nicosia, where mat- Eurojust also hosted the 33rd regular meeting of the EJN
ters related to the application of the EAW and, in par- contact points, the 11th Tools Correspondents meeting,
ticular, the principle of proportionality, were discussed.
and the 4th National Correspondents meeting.
As in previous years, Eurojust worked on its relation-
ship with the EJN. In addition, the Joint Task Force Eu- JITs Network
rojust-EJN (the Task Force) was requested under the
Danish EU Presidency to further address the issue of Since 2005, Eurojust and the JITs Network have been
complementarity between the EJN and Eurojust. The cooperating to raise awareness, promote the use of
Eurojust EJN & Liaison Magistrates Team contrib- and develop supporting tools for the use of JITs in the
uted to the preparation of the Task Force meeting in Member States.
2012 Annual Report
37
By establishing the JITs Network Secretariat in 2011, their counterparts from Canada, Norway, Switzerland,
Eurojust provided JITs practitioners with a useful co- the USA, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and
ad
ordination platform. In 2012, the JITs Network Sec-
hoc international criminal tribunals, the International
retariat supplied practitioners in the Member States, Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Interpol and repre-
and relevant EU institutions and agencies, with more sentatives from civil society.
than 3 500 copies of the printed edition of the
Euro-
just-Europol JIT Manual.
At the 12th meeting, participants discussed coopera-
tion between national immigration authorities and
On 18-19 October, more than 100 JITs practitioners gath- law enforcement/prosecution services in the identi-
ered at the 8th Annual Meeting of the National Experts on fication of alleged perpetrators who have entered or
Joint Investigation Teams. The discussions focused on the already reside within the territory of the European
evaluation of JITs. Further information about Eurojust’s Union. Participants also discussed the requirements
work in the field of JITs can be found in section 1.4.
for the effective investigation and prosecution of cas-
es based on Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees.
Genocide Network
The 13th meeting further explored this topic, with
Since 2004, Eurojust and the European Network of the participation of the European Asylum Support Of-
contact points in respect of persons responsible for fice and NGOs that assist in the identification of wit-
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes nesses, victims and perpetrators of core international
(Genocide Network) have cooperated efficiently crimes. Experts also discussed: (i) gathering of infor-
in the fight against impunity for core international mation on crimes in the ongoing conflict in Syria; (ii)
crimes. Since the establishment of the Genocide Net- the outcome of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
work Secretariat at Eurojust in 2011, the activities of judgement on questions relating to the obligation to
the Genocide Network have significantly increased.
prosecute or extradite (
Belgium v. Senegal), and its
consequences in relation to conventions on coopera-
By hosting the Genocide Network meetings and its tion in criminal matters; (iii) the initiative on a new
Secretariat, Eurojust provides a forum for practition- international legal framework for cooperation in re-
ers to meet, discuss, exchange information, best prac- spect of genocide, crimes against humanity and war
tice and experience, and cooperate and assist each crimes; and (iv) possibilities to establish JITs for the
other in the investigation and prosecution of persons investigation and prosecution of core international
responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity crimes. Eurojust’s expertise proved essential.
and war crimes.
Eurojust and the Genocide Network have continued
Eurojust hosted the 12th and 13th meetings of the Gen- to actively cooperate in the establishment of tools for
ocide Network at its premises. Both meetings brought information exchange between the members of the
together practitioners from the Member States and Genocide Network.
38 Operational activities
Relations with EU institutions and partners
2.1 Institutional relations
with regard to the financing of JITs by Eurojust. Euro-
just contributed to the implementation of the policy
cycle and participated in all Operational Action Plans
related to the EU crime priorities.
The main findings and recommendations of the Euro-
just Strategic Project on
Enhancing the work of Euro-
just in drug trafficking cases – final results (11483/12);
European Parliament
the strategic seminar organised jointly with the Danish
Presidency on
A Multidisciplinary Approach to Organ-
Following established practice, the President of Eu-
ised Crime: Administrative Measures, Judicial Follow-Up
rojust presented the Annual Report 2011 to the LIBE
and the Role of Eurojust – Copenhagen, 11 - 13 March
Committee in June. An exchange of views took place on
2012 – Outcome Report (11298/12), and the Strategic
the future of Eurojust. The LIBE Committee announced Project on
Eurojust’s action against trafficking in hu-
plans to visit Eurojust. In June, Eurojust also presented
man beings – final report and action plan (16947/12),
its findings on
Enhancement of cooperation between were submitted to the Council Working Parties.
the judicial authorities of the Member States involved in
the fight against organised crime and the role of Euro-
just to the Special Committee on Organised Crime, Cor- European Commission
ruption and Money Laundering (CRIM Committee).
Following negotiations conducted in 2011, Eurojust
Eurojust provided its opinion on the proposal for an and the European Commission signed a Memoran-
EU draft Directive on the freezing and confiscation of dum of Understanding on 20 July 2012, formalising
proceeds of crime in the European Union. The contri- the exchange of information and seeking to enhance
bution included an overview of best practices devel- cooperation in matters of mutual interest. Meetings
oped in some Member States, together with informa- between the Eurojust Presidency and Administrative
tion on the existing systems of some Member States, Director with counterparts in the European Commis-
recognising the possibility of applying non-conviction- sion took place throughout 2012, facilitating commu-
based confiscation.
nication on strategic and budgetary matters.
Eurojust replied to the European Commission’s public
Council of the European Union
consultation,
Protecting the EU’s financial interests and
enhancing prosecutions. Practical and legal issues re-
Eurojust was invited to participate in various Coun- lated to the establishment of a specialised EPPO were
cil Working Parties dealing with judicial cooperation highlighted, in particular the importance of a close re-
in criminal matters. In particular, Eurojust contrib- lationship between the EPPO and Eurojust.
uted to the efforts of the Working Party on General
Matters and Evaluation (GENVAL), the Working Par- At the invitation of Vice-President Viviane Reding, Com-
ty on Cooperation in Criminal Matters (COPEN), and missioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizen-
the JAI-RELEX Working Party (JAIEX). In addition, ship, Eurojust participated in a meeting on 26 June, to-
Eurojust attended Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) gether with Prosecutors General and Directors of Public
Council and CATS meetings whenever its presence Prosecutions of the Member States, dealing with the
was requested.
prosecution of fraud against the EU’s financial interests.
Eurojust continued to participate in the meetings and In October, Eurojust welcomed the invitation to at-
activities of COSI and to offer its contributions, from tend and contribute to the consultative meeting of the
a judicial perspective, to operational cooperation in European Commission and Member States’ experts
criminal matters. In particular, Eurojust provided in- on the reform of Eurojust’s governance, parliamenta-
put to the second implementation report on the EU ry control and possible additional powers, such as the
Internal Security Strategy and to the Council’s
Consid- initiation of investigations and the issuing of binding
erations about effectively financing the EU policy cycle decisions to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction.
2012 Annual Report
41
2.2 Relations with practitioner networks
European Judicial Training Network
Union (Consultative Forum). In June, under the Danish
EU Presidency, Eurojust facilitated the response of the
Eurojust continued its active participation in and Consultative Forum to the public consultation launched
support to the European Judicial Training Network by the European Commission,
Protecting the European
(EJTN) Exchange Programme. Over the course of the
Union’s financial interests and enhancing prosecutions,
year, nine prosecutors/judges from different Member with a common contribution dealing with harmonisa-
States spent three months at Eurojust, participating tion of criminal law and the establishment of the EPPO,
in the daily work of the National Desk of their country prepared on the basis of the replies provided by numer-
of origin (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, ous Consultative Forum members.
Spain, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Slovak Republic).
The Exchange Programme exposes participants to A meeting of the Consultative Forum, organised by
the work of the organisation as a whole, providing a the Cyprus EU Presidency, was held at Eurojust in De-
greater understanding of the use and efficiency of the cember. Participants discussed the challenges to the
judicial tools at the disposal of the National Desks.
investigation and prosecution of crimes affecting the
EU’s financial interests, the added value brought by
Eurojust and the EJTN also followed up on the newly the recent draft
Directive of the European Parliament
created programme of EJTN trainees for a short-term
and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Un-
period (one week). Three National Desks (Hungary,
ion’s financial interest by means of criminal law, and the
Portugal and Spain) hosted short-term trainees in De- respective roles of the European Union, Eurojust, and
cember. The short-term exchange programme affords the Member States. Also discussed were definitions of
prosecutors/judges the opportunity, during a limited PIF offences, jurisdictional concerns, harmonisation of
period, to understand the scope of the work of the sanctions, time limits, and the importance of all these
National Desks and provides a broad overview of the issues for the future establishment of the EPPO. Mat-
work conducted at Eurojust. Eurojust actively support- ters linked with judicial cooperation in freezing and
ed a training course,
International judicial cooperation confiscation were also discussed, with particular em-
in criminal matters in practice, which provided simula- phasis on obstacles to asset recovery, practitioners’ ex-
tions of EAW and MLA cases. The training courses took perience, best practice and needs, the practical use of
place in several European cities (Bucharest, Madrid, existing EU instruments, and the possible impact of the
Lisbon, Krakow, Rome, Tartu and Zagreb).
draft Directive on the freezing and confiscation of pro-
ceeds of crime in the European Union. The participants
discussed future perspectives for the Consultative Fo-
Consultative Forum of Prosecutors General
rum. In this context, the Consultative Forum members
and Directors of Public Prosecutions
asked Eurojust to continue to provide support for its
activities. The outcome of this meeting is transmit-
During 2012, Eurojust continued to provide extensive ted to the relevant EU institutions to make known the
legal and logistical support to the work of the Consulta- opinions of the Consultative Forum on all discussed
tive Forum of Prosecutors General and Directors of Pub- topics and to serve legislative and policy efforts at EU
lic Prosecutions of the Member States of the European level in the fight against serious crime.
2.3 EU agencies and bodies
Europol
“information supplied by Member States’ authorities
and Europol”. Both organisations sought to improve
Operational cooperation between Eurojust and Eu- the exchange of information to enable Eurojust to
ropol was enhanced by the complementarity of their fully achieve its mandate.
mandates and continued to be of crucial importance
to Eurojust’s activities throughout the year. The TFEU Casework cooperation between Eurojust and Europol
refers to Eurojust’s coordination role being based on benefited from Europol’s participation in Eurojust’s
42 Relations with EU institutions and partners
coordination meetings concerning 85 cases. The de- opened at Eurojust in 2010, was extended to OLAF in
velopment of direct communication and cooperation 2012. OLAF also attended five coordination meetings.
between National Desks and the Europol Liaison Bu-
reaux continued, with many National Desks having Throughout the year, Eurojust and OLAF’s liaison
regular contacts and meetings.
teams met regularly to strengthen operational coop-
eration in ongoing cases and to elaborate on matters
The exchange of operational information through the se- of common interest. A discussion of the possibility
cure communication line between Eurojust and Europol of establishing an exchange programme for Eurojust
has remained stable, with 943 messages exchanged.
and OLAF was initiated during the common meetings.
An additional improvement in information exchange Eurojust participated in the 10th OLAF Conference of
arose from the entry into force on 1 April of an up- Fraud Prosecutors in November, as well as the June
dated Memorandum of Understanding on the estab- conference,
A blueprint for the European Public Pros-
lishment of a secure communication line that creates
ecutor’s Office? EU model rules of criminal procedure,
the legal prerequisite for the use of the Secure Infor- organised by the University of Luxembourg with the
mation Exchange Network Application (SIENA) for support of OLAF. Eurojust and OLAF enhanced their
information exchange with Eurojust. Technical im- efforts throughout the year to strengthen casework
plementation and training in SIENA for the National cooperation, and expressed their commitment to ini-
Desks and Case Analysis Unit was almost completed tiate cooperation whenever the need for coordination
by the end of the year. The use of SIENA for informa- becomes apparent, regardless of the bilateral or mul-
tion exchange with Europol will be assessed regularly tilateral nature of the case. The common list of cases
to ensure its full utilisation.
is monitored and regularly updated and a common
evaluation of closed cases in which both OLAF and
Eurojust continued to be associated with 17 of the Eurojust were involved was agreed.
Europol Focal Points (formerly Analysis Work Files)
and commenced work on a feasibility study. Discus- An agreement in principle was also reached on a
sions continue to facilitate the further association of “common mission” approach of Eurojust and OLAF
Eurojust with Focal Points such as those related to Is- representatives in relation to cases where an admin-
lamist terrorism and domestic extremism.
istrative investigation requires judicial follow-up.
An exchange programme for staff at both organisations, Finally, the new OLAF regulation is expected to
launched in 2011, proved successful, and the number greatly contribute to future operational cooperation
of mutual visits and participants increased. A total of between Eurojust and OLAF, as it provides specific
44 post-holders were reciprocally hosted at Eurojust reference to the transmission of relevant informa-
and Europol. Europol participants visiting Eurojust at- tion to Eurojust.
tended briefings tailored to their specific professional
backgrounds and needs. Operational cooperation in
JITs was improved by the development of a mechanism Frontex
to inform each other of participation in JITs.
Eurojust and Frontex continued negotiations on an
On 12 April and 24 November, informal meetings be- instrument to encourage and promote inter-agency
tween the Eurojust Presidency, the Eurojust Admin- cooperation and support their mutual efforts in the
istrative Director and the Europol Directorate took fight against cross-border crime. Frontex succeeded
place, a welcome initiative that will be continued in Eurojust as Chair of the Heads of JHA Agencies. Euro-
the future. As in previous years, Eurojust attended the just participated in the activities of the JHA Agencies
Heads of Europol National Units (HENUs) meetings.
focusing on multilateral cooperation, and attended
the annual meeting of Heads of JHA Agencies on 3 De-
cember at Frontex.
European Anti-Fraud Office
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is a privileged CEPOL
partner in the fight against fraud, corruption and other
crimes affecting the financial interests of the European Eurojust continued to contribute to the work of CE-
Union. Eurojust opened five cases with the involvement POL, with input to the CEPOL online learning module
of OLAF and one further case, which had already been on THB, participation in the CEPOL webinar for EU
2012 Annual Report
43
law enforcement and judicial cooperation agencies, development of a
Eurojust Common Curriculum took
and training in JIT funding. To enhance future cooper- place, with an internal working group on this topic
ation, a meeting between CEPOL and Eurojust on the established at Eurojust.
2.4 Relations with third States and organisa-
tions outside the European Union
In December, Eurojust submitted the draft agreement Republic of Cyprus and the European Commission.
on cooperation between Eurojust and the Principality It addressed best practice and difficulties encoun-
of Liechtenstein to the Council of the EU for approv- tered in various fields of judicial cooperation, possi-
al and informed the Council of its plans to institute ble further steps to strengthen cooperation, and the
formal negotiations to conclude a cooperation agree- appointment of Eurojust contact points in Southern
ment with the Republic of Moldova. Cooperation neighbours of the EU.
agreements with the Russian Federation and Ukraine
were reconfirmed as priorities.
The
Workshop on the Application of the Mutual Legal
Assistance and Extradition Agreements between the
Contacts were pursued to explore the possibility of
European Union and the United States of America was
initiating negotiations on cooperation agreements held at Eurojust on 25-26 October, organised jointly
with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, by Eurojust and the USA, with support from the Cy-
Israel, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Latin Ameri- prus EU Presidency, the General Secretariat of the
can countries, in particular Brazil, Colombia and Mex- Council, and the European Commission. The work-
ico, were added to the priority list for negotiation of shop addressed the difficulties encountered in the
cooperation agreements. Eurojust also added Tunisia field of extradition and MLA, as well as issues related
to its network of contact points in third States. In ad- to confiscation and asset recovery, cybercrime inves-
dition, Eurojust and Interpol initiated negotiations to tigations and exchange of electronic evidence.
conclude a Memorandum of Understanding.
Eurojust continued to support initiatives in the
A strategic seminar,
Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Balkans, including the European Commission pro-
Matters between the EU Member States and Southern ject,
Fight against organised crime and corruption:
neighbours of the EU (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,
Strengthening the Prosecutors’ Network.
Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestinian Authority and
Tunisia), was held in Limassol, Republic of Cyprus, For information on Eurojust casework involving third
on 4-5 October, jointly organised by Eurojust, the States and the role played by Liaison Prosecutors from
Cyprus EU Presidency, the Attorney General of the third States seconded to Eurojust, see section 1.5.
44 Relations with EU institutions and partners
The Eurojust Decision and the future
3.1 Implementation of the Eurojust Decision
Legislation to bring national law into conformity Connections are in place with Bulgaria and Roma-
with the Eurojust Decision by the June 2011 dead- nia. Other Member States will soon follow.
line was necessary in 20 Member States. However, by
the end of 2012, only 12 Member States had fully im- A first meeting of National Correspondents for Eu-
plemented the Eurojust Decision (7 legislatively and rojust was held at Eurojust on 12 November. The ob-
5 administratively), 4 Member States had partially jective of the meeting was to discuss and exchange
implemented it, and based on information received best practice and experience. The meeting focused
from Member States, 11 had not yet implemented it.
on the state of play of the set-up and functioning
of the ENCS in the Member States, information ex-
Eurojust completed several projects related to the in- change on the basis of Article 13 of the Eurojust De-
ternal implementation of the Eurojust Decision. The cision, the use of the Eurojust “smart” Article 13 PDF
OCC system, which became operational in 2011, is form, feedback from Eurojust on the basis of Article
now fully functioning, enabling Eurojust to be reached 13a, and of the technical connection between the
24/7 via a free international telephone number.
ENCS and the CMS.
Eurojust continued to develop its CMS, as well as its The
fiches suédoises, developed by Eurojust to pro-
“smart” Article 13 PDF form, which was developed vide an overview of the implementation of the ENCS
in 2011 to facilitate a structured transmission of in the Member States, were launched in 2008 under
information from practitioners to Eurojust and, fol- the Swedish EU Presidency and have been regularly
lowing user requests, was improved in 2012 with updated.
Version 2.0 that can also be semi-automatically im-
ported into the CMS.
Several Member States reported having an ENCS in
place, but little or no practical experience to date, due
One of the most important developments in the to its recent establishment. In some Member States,
Member States in 2012 has been the evolution of the the ENCS has been established in strict accordance
ENCS. Eurojust devoted further work to the techni- with Article 12 of the Eurojust Decision (i.e. only those
cal connection between the members of the ENCS categories of members mentioned in the Eurojust De-
in the Member States and Eurojust’s CMS to better cision are included in the ENCS). Other Member States
meet the needs of users and to make the transmis- have chosen a wider approach, and have either includ-
sion of information both safer and more conveni- ed in the ENCS or invited to ENCS meetings represent-
ent. In the short term, this connection will facilitate atives of other agencies not mentioned in Article 12
greater security for e-mail transmissions, while of the Eurojust Decision, such as representatives from
in the longer term, the connection enables ENCS law enforcement agencies dealing with financial crime,
members in Member States to be linked to the CMS. and contact points for OLAF and Europol.
3.2 Sixth round of mutual evaluations on the
practical implementation and operation of the
Decisions on Eurojust and the EJN
In June 2011, GENVAL decided that the sixth round and then receives a visit by an evaluation team com-
of mutual evaluations should be devoted to the prac- posed of three experts from other Member States
tical implementation and operation in the Member and observers from the Commission, Eurojust and
States of the Decisions on Eurojust and the EJN. All Europol. Eurojust also provided replies to a specific
Member States will be evaluated over the course of questionnaire addressed to it that are taken into ac-
three years (2012-2014). Each Member State pro- count by the evaluation teams participating in the
vides written replies to a Council questionnaire, visits to each Member State.
2012 Annual Report
47
Over the course of 2012, Sweden, Lithuania, Belgium, of the observers – write evaluation reports based on
Estonia, Slovak Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary the Member States’ replies to the questionnaires and
and Austria were evaluated. Following on-site visits the findings from the evaluation visits. The final re-
to the Member States, the experts – with the assistance ports are presented to GENVAL.
3.3 Task Force on the Future of Eurojust
The Task Force on the Future of Eurojust continued and the independence of the operational work of
its reflections and activities on the reform of Eu- the National Desks, and submitted a contribution
rojust in light of Article 85 TFEU and towards the to the European Commission suggesting possible
establishment of an EPPO “from Eurojust”, as fore- governance set-ups. A second contribution con-
seen by Article 86 TFEU. Eurojust concluded ini- cerned the involvement of the European Parlia-
tial considerations regarding its future structure, ment and national parliaments in the evaluation of
building on principles of sound public governance Eurojust’s activities.
3.4 Conference on
Ten years of Eurojust, oper-
ational achievements and future challenges
Both the expertise gained by Eurojust in the coordi- Participants underlined that improvement in the internal
nation of investigations of serious crime in the past structure and parliamentary control of Eurojust should
decade and its future perspectives were discussed be accompanied by its enhanced operational effective-
during a conference in November, organised by Eu- ness in the coordination of investigations and prosecu-
rojust with the support of the Academy of European tions, possibly including in the future the initiation of in-
Law (ERA), entitled
Ten years of Eurojust, operational vestigations and the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction.
achievements and future challenges.
In the context of Article 86 TFEU, the necessity for a
The conference brought together representatives coherent framework and close links between Euro-
from EU institutions and relevant bodies in the area just and the EPPO and other relevant actors in the
of criminal justice, representatives from the Mem- field, such as OLAF and Europol, to achieve a common
ber States, national judicial authorities, academic goal were underlined, e.g. combating fraud against
experts and present and former National Members. the EU’s financial interests more effectively.
For the first time, a Eurojust event was also open to
the general public.
Participants agreed that a future EPPO should build
on existing structures, experience and expertise and
The participants confirmed that coordination meet- become part of a coherent system in the area of free-
ings, coordination centres and support for JITs were dom, security and justice. They also agreed that Eu-
seen as effective tools to help overcome shortcomings rojust will have a pivotal role to play in a future EPPO
faced in transnational investigations and prosecu- and in relations with the national judicial authorities
tions against serious cross-border crime.
of the Member States and third States.
48 The Eurojust Decision and the future
Administrative developments
4.1 Administrative developments
The Annual Work Plan and operational plans at unit lev- strategic planning. Eurojust also consulted the other
el form a key component of the Eurojust strategic plan- agencies on its annual work programme for 2014.
ning and programming cycle and the basis of Eurojust’s
activity-based budget. Work is in progress to improve Eurojust made progress in the framework of the
the tools available to ensure effective planning, cost- Organisational Structure Review (OSR), including
effective budgeting and performance management.
the migration of Eurojust’s administration to a new
structure. The migration process followed a recruit-
The planned activities of Eurojust in 2012 were ment plan, managed through a series of internal and
achieved with a workforce of 274 having their regu- external selection procedures. Included in the large
lar place of work in The Hague, namely 45 prosecu- volume of selection procedures associated with this
tors, judges and police officers of equivalent compe- migration, the selection of the Head of Operational
tence seconded to Eurojust from Member States, 12 Support was completed.
Seconded National Experts and 217 staff members.
Eurojust’s budget for 2012 was EUR 32 967 000; the The Action Plan for the implementation of the Eurojust
budget implementation was 98%.
Communication Strategy, adopted by the College in Oc-
tober 2012, includes a series of activities to reinforce
In the framework of the Memorandum of Under- relations with EU partners, stakeholders and media,
standing between the European Commission and and sets up a database of case illustrations to increase
Eurojust, a number of management meetings and the visibility of Eurojust’s casework. The new Eurojust
a regular exchange of information and consultation website was launched in February 2012 on the occa-
between representatives of the Commission, the Ad- sion of Eurojust’s 10th anniversary celebrations.
ministrative Director of Eurojust and the Heads of
Units and Services, have taken place. The increased The winning design team for the new Eurojust prem-
dialogue has been mutually beneficial, especially ises was selected by Eurojust and the Host State in
during a time of financial constraints and discus- early 2012, and continued working on the definition
sions on the new regulations for Eurojust.
of requirements and the final design of the new prem-
ises, due at the end of 2013. According to the plan-
Eurojust participated within the framework of the ning schedule, Eurojust’s new premises will be deliv-
activities of the JHA Agencies in expert meetings on ered by the end of 2015.
4.2 Public access to documents
The number of requests for public access to Eurojust the Decision to Adopt Rules Regarding Public Access
documents increased in 2012, amounting to seven- to Eurojust Documents).
teen initial requests and one confirmatory applica-
tion. Fourteen of the initial requests were received With regard to the six requests to access case-related
directly by Eurojust. Eurojust was consulted as a documents, one request was partially granted; re-
third party in the other three cases, following re- fusal of some of the requested documents (or parts
quests received by other national and international of them) was decided on the grounds of the protec-
organisations.
tion of the privacy and integrity of the individuals
and the protection of Eurojust’s decision-making
In seven of the eight non-case-related requests, ac- process (per articles 4(1)(b) and 4(3) of the Deci-
cess was fully granted. In one request, access was par- sion to Adopt Rules Regarding Public Access to Eu-
tially refused because full disclosure would under- rojust Documents). In another request, Eurojust no
mine public security, the fulfilment of Eurojust’s tasks longer held the requested documents. In the four re-
in reinforcing the fight against serious crime and the maining requests to access case-related documents,
fulfilment of the applicable rules on professional se- access was refused because their release would
crecy (per article 4(1)(a), 1st, 5th and 7th indents of undermine the protection of the public interest
2012 Annual Report
51
regarding the fulfilment of Eurojust’s tasks in re- rojust’s decision-making process (Article 4(3) of
inforcing the fight against serious crime, national the Decision to Adopt Rules Regarding Public Ac-
investigations and prosecutions in which Eurojust cess to Eurojust Documents).
assists, and the fulfilment of the applicable rules on
professional secrecy (per article 4(1)(a), 5th, 6th The other three requests for access referred to crimi-
and 7th indents of the Decision to Adopt Rules Re- nal matters or to criminal investigations in general, but
garding Public Access to Eurojust Documents), the either fell outside the scope of Eurojust’s mandate or
integrity of individuals (per Article 4(1)(b) of the referred to cases in which Eurojust had not assisted.
Decision to Adopt Rules Regarding Public Access to Therefore, Eurojust communicated to the applicants
Eurojust Documents) and/or the protection of Eu- that no Eurojust documents were available.
Eurojust Heads of Units and Services
From left to right: Jacques Vos, Corporate Services; Joannes Thuy, Spokesperson, Press & PR; Diana Alonso Blas, Data Protection Officer; Carla
Garcia Bello, Legal Secretary to the College; Alinde Verhaag, Case Analysis; Anna Baldan, JITs Network Secretariat Coordinator; Klaus Rackwitz,
Administrative Director; Catherine Deboyser, Legal Service; Jon Broughton, Information Management; Mike Moulder, Budget, Finance and
Procurement; Linda Scotts, Human Resources; Matevž Pezdirc, Genocide Network Coordinator; Fatima Martins, Secretary to EJN
Eurojust Administration 2013
52 Administrative developments
Follow-up to Council Conclusions
On 6 June 2012, the JHA Council adopted Conclusions on the tenth Eurojust Annual Report (10360/12). As in
previous years, Eurojust reports on the implementation of these conclusions. Below is a table indicating where
more information can be found in the areas where the Council made recommendations.
Council recommendations
Follow-up
To enhance the use of videoconferencing.
Although no figures are available, more frequent
use by National Desks of the videoconferencing
equipment in coordination meetings, coordi-
nation centres and meetings with their home
authorities has been noted.
To develop the use of coordination centres and to
Seven coordination centres were held in 2012.
report on the practical use and its value for car-
See section 1.4.
rying out of the investigations.
To further support the creation and implementa-
Eurojust participated in 47 JITs and financed 62
tion of JITs with a view to developing best prac-
in 2012.
See sections 1.4 and 1.6 (JITs Network).
tices and sharing information on judicial experi-
ence and case results.
To maintain its practice of associating Europol in
Europol participated in Eurojust coordination
the coordination process.
meetings in 85 cases.
See section 2.3.
To report on the implementation of article 7(3)
See section 1.2.
of the EJD in relation to the EAW.
To perfect its capacities to report on difficulties,
See section 1.
solutions and trends in judicial cooperation in
criminal matters.
To report on the use of PDF form in relation to
An electronic template has been developed. The
Article 13 of the EJD and to specify the extent of
latest version allows semi-automatic input of data
exchange of information.
into the Case Management System.
See section 3.1.
To ensure a timely finalisation of the EPOC IV
The conclusion of the project coincided with the
project.
final conference on 29 and 30 March 2012 in
Noordwijk, Netherlands.
To complete the implementation process as well
A total of 11 Member States are still to imple-
as the implementation of the secure connection
ment.
See section 3.1 (secure connection to the
allowing access to the CMS on national level.
CMS at national level).
To report on the implementation of Article 13a
Feedback through the Annual Report and strate-
with respect to the information and feedback
gic reports on serious crimes (drug trafficking,
provided to national authorities.
THB). Also through link detection and cross-
referencing analysis and information exchange
during coordination meetings.
See section 3.1.
2012 Annual Report
55
Annex - Eurojust case statistics
Figure 1 - Case evolution 2002-2012
Eurojust registered 1 533 cases in 2012, continuing the upward trend in the number of referrals for assistance
by Member States since 2002. Approximately 20% of these cases involved three or more countries.
Multilateral
Bilateral
Total
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Figure 2 - Bilateral/multilateral cases by National Desk 2012
The figure shows the number of bilateral and multilateral cases registered by National Desk in 2012. A bilater-
al case does not mean that a less serious criminal offence is concerned or that limited involvement by Eurojust
is appropriate. A bilateral case at Eurojust may be multilateral in a Member State.
Multilateral
Bilateral
Total
BE BG CZ DK DE EE
IE
EL
ES FR
IT
CY LV
LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO
SI
SK
FI
SE UK
2012 Annual Report
57
Figure 3 - Cases opened/closed 2003-2012
The caseload of the National Desks is not only impacted by the number of cases registered in a year, but also
by ongoing cases of previous years. Eurojust had a total of 575 cases pending from previous years (2003-
2011) that still required attention and assistance.
Opened
Closed
Total
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Figure 4 - General case classification
According to article 4(1) of the
Cases article 4(1)
Eurojust Decision, the general
competence of Eurojust covers
Cases article 4(2)
the types of crime and offences in
Legal topic cases
respect of which Europol is at all
times competent to act and other
offences committed together with
these types of crime and offences.
For other types of offences, Euro-
just may, in accordance with its
objectives, assist in investigations
and prosecutions at the request of
a competent authority of a Mem-
ber State as per article 4(2).
Eurojust may also be requested
by a Member State to provide as-
sistance on matters or topics of a
more general nature, not neces-
sarily directly linked to an ongo-
ing operational case,
inter alia,
2011
2012
concerning national legislation or
procedures (legal topic cases).
58 Annex - Statistics for 2012
Figure 5 - Priority crime types in Eurojust cases
The operational priority areas adopted by Eurojust in 2012-2013 cover drug trafficking, illegal immigrant
smuggling, trafficking in human beings, terrorism, fraud, corruption, money laundering, cybercrime, crimes
against the financial interests of the European Union and other activities related to the presence of organised
crime groups in the economy.
The figure shows the number of times that these crime types were involved in the cases registered at Eurojust
in 2011 and 2012. One case may involve more than one crime type. Further information can be found in the
relevant subsections of section 1.
2011
2012
Drug trafficking
Illegal immigrant
Trafficking in
Terrorism
Fraud
Corruption
Money laundering
Cybercrime
Crimes against the (Mobile) Organised
smuggling
human beings
financial interests
Crime Groups
of the EU
Figure 6 - Priority crime types and other crime types in Eurojust cases
The operational priority areas
adopted by Eurojust in 2012-2013
Priority crime type
cover drug trafficking, illegal im-
Other types of crime
migrant smuggling, trafficking in
human beings, terrorism, fraud,
corruption, money laundering, cy-
bercrime, crimes against the fi-
nancial interests of the European
Union and other activities relat-
ed to the presence of organised
crime groups in the economy.
The figure shows the number of
times that crime types in the pri-
ority areas, as well as other crime
types, were involved in the cases
registered at Eurojust in 2011
2011
2012
and 2012. One case may involve
more than one crime type.
2012 Annual Report
59
Figure 7 - Eurojust cases: requesting countries
The figure shows by Member State the number of times Eurojust’s assistance was requested in 2011 and 2012.
2011
2012
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE
EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI
SK
FI
SE UK
Figure 8 - Eurojust cases: requested countries
The figure shows the number of times the assistance of authorities in each Member State was requested
through Eurojust in 2011 and 2012.
2011
2012
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE
EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI
SK
FI
SE UK
60 Annex - Statistics for 2012
Figure 9 - Total number of coordination meetings
The figure shows the number of cases that required a coordination meeting. Coordination meetings are nor-
mally held at Eurojust’s premises in The Hague. In certain situations, coordination meetings are held outside
Eurojust, in a Member State or in a third State.
Outside Eurojust
Inside Eurojust
Total
2011
2012
Figure 10 - Coordination meetings: requesting countries
The figure shows the number of cases that required a coordination meeting following a request for assistance
from each Member State or third State.
2011
2012
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE
EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI
SK FI
SE UK NO
2012 Annual Report
61
Figure 11 - Coordination meetings: requested countries
The figure shows the number of times Member State authorities participated in a Eurojust coordination meet-
ing on cases requiring coordination after being requested for assistance.
2011
2012
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE
EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI
SK
FI
SE UK
62 Annex - Statistics for 2012
© Eurojust, 2013
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form by any means, graphic, elec-
tronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems,
without permission of Eurojust.
Editing:
Deborah de Jonge, Jacalyn Birk
Design/DTP: Michèle Wilks-Speer
Photos:
Michel Mees, Joannes Thuy, Leen De Zutter
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal
Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France
Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium
Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia
Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg
Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta
Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
France Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Austria
Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Finland Ger
EUROJUST
Maanweg 174, 2516 AB The Hague, Netherlands
Phone: +31 70 412 5000 - E-mail: xxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xx - Website: www.eurojust.europa.eu
Document Outline