Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Child Abuse'.



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 exampleThe 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