1. Conflicts of jurisdiction
VI. Role of Eurojust in
Conflicts of jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction vs conflicts of exercising jurisdiction
Why avoid positive conflicts ?
Providing legal certainty
Avoiding unnecessary duplication of intrusive measures
Avoiding conflicts between investigative measures
Preventing cases of ne bis in idem
Why avoid negative conflicts ?
Avoiding impunity due to lack of any investigation
Avoiding unnecessary parallel/subsequent investigations
Parallel investigations vs concentration of investigations /prosecutions
Problem: Identification of parallel investigations
Timing of choice of forum
Purpose of choice of forum

2. Conflicts of jurisdiction
VI. Role of Eurojust in
Conflicts of jurisdiction
Informal Role
Support in the identification of parallel proceedings
Prevention of conflicts through information
Prevention and settlement of conflicts through coordination
Organisation of Seminars on the topic of conflicts of jurisdiction
13670 cases from
1762 coordination meetings from
Formal mechanisms:
Article 6(a)(i) and Article 7(a)(i) EJD:
Ask the competent authorities to investigate or prosecute specific acts
Article 6(a)(ii) and Article 7(a)(ii):
Ask the competent authorities : to accept that one country is better placed to prosecute than another

3. in conflicts of jurisdiction
VI. Role for Eurojust
in conflicts of jurisdiction
Article 7(2) EJD
If National Members cannot agree
Request to College
Written non-binding opinion, provided the matter could not be resolved between the competent authorities
Note: Article 8 EJD: obligation to provide reasons if decision not to follow the Eurojust opinion
Article 13(7)(a) EJD:
Obligation made to all national authorities to inform Eurojust of cases «where conflicts of jurisdiction have arisen or are likely to arise ».
Article 13(6) EJD
Obligation to inform Eurojust of serious crime cases in which at least 3 MS are directly involved and for which judicial cooperation has been sought from at least 2 MS.

4. in conflicts of jurisdiction
VI. Role for Eurojust
in conflicts of jurisdiction
Other references to Eurojust
Article 12(2) and recitals 4, 9, 10 and 14 FD 2009/948/JHA on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction
Information to Eurojust (NMs or College)
Article 16(2) FD 2002/584/JHA (EAW)
The executing judicial authority may seek the advice of Eurojust
Article 9(2) FD 2002/475/JHA (terrorism) and Article 10(4) FD 2005/222/JHA (cybercrime)
“May have recourse to any body or mechanism”
Article 7(2) FD 2008/841/JHA (organised crime)
“May have recourse to Eurojust or any other body”

5. in conflicts of jurisdiction
VI. Role for Eurojust
in conflicts of jurisdiction
The Eurojust Guidelines - See Annual Report 2003

6. in conflicts of jurisdiction
VI. Role for Eurojust
in conflicts of jurisdiction
The Eurojust Guidelines - See Annual Report 2003
Preliminary presumption – Preference:
Place where the majority of the criminality occurred or where the majority of the loss was
Other criteria:
Location of the accused (including question of possible
extradition/surrender or transfer of proceedings)
Where possible, prosecute all persons suspected of having committed same/related offence in the same jurisdiction
Availability of witnesses (willingness to travel or possibility to give evidence by videoconference)
Protection of witnesses
As a residual factor: length of proceedings
Interest of the victims
«Non criteria»:
Legal requirements
Sentencing powers
Proceeds of crime
Impact on ressources/costs

7. in conflicts of jurisdiction
VI. Role for Eurojust
in conflicts of jurisdiction
Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA = First important step in EU law instrument on prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction
Aim:
To prevent unnecessary parallel criminal proceedings concerning the same facts and the same person in the EU.
Main elements:
Consultation procedure between competent authorities of EU Member States in case of parallel proceedings
Exchange of information
Direct consultations/direct contact
Procedure of reaching consensus
Cooperation with Eurojust
Deadline to implement: 15 June 2012
Implementation Report COM (2014) 313 final – 2 June 2014
Partial and incomplete transposition of FD (only 15 MS at the time of the report, now 18 plus 2 where no implementation measures were necessary)
Little practical experience
Large majority of existing implementation laws generally satisfactory
Need for statistical data as regards referral of cases

8. Case illustration – Drug trafficking case
SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
PACIFIC OCEAN
NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
INDIAN OCEAN
ARTIC OCEAN
Ultimate World Map Kit

9. Case illustration – Drug trafficking case
In PT :
suspects & evidence
5 EAWs
ES:
large investigation on-going
Early involvement of Eurojust
Article 6(a)(ii) EJD
Welcome to Eurojust
01/12/2018

10. Case example 2: «Ne bis in idem»?
2 parallel proceedings in 2 MS,
2 final judgments
Ne bis in idem?
Execution of which judgment (first)?
Same acts?

11. VII. Role of Eurojust in JITs
What is a JIT?
An investigation team
set up on the basis of an agreement
between 2 or more MS (and possibly other parties)
to investigate offences with a cross border dimension
for a specific purpose
and a limited duration
Legal basis:
Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union (Article 13) (OJ C 197 of , p.1)
Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Joint Investigation Teams (OJ L 162 of , p. 1).
In force in all MS except Italy
Article 13(1) of the 2000 MLA Convention states that a JIT may, in particular, be set up where:
(a) A Member State's investigations into criminal offences require difficult and demanding investigations having links with other Member States;
b) A number of Member States are conducting investigations into criminal offences in which the circumstances of the case necessitate co-ordinated, concerted action in the Member States involved.

12. VII. Role of Eurojust in JITs
How?
1. Conclusion of a JIT Agreement between the JIT member
- See Model Agreement adopted by Council Resolution 2010/C 70/01 (OJ C 70 of , p.1)
The Agreement shall contain:
Identification of the parties/MS concerned
Purpose of the JIT
Period of time covered by the Agreement
Composition
2. Composition
JIT Leader
Team members
Seconded members
Participants

13. EUROJUST EUROPOL (Participant) (Participant) + Members +Members
Signing Parties
(autorisation needed?)
Leader Leader
+ Members Members
EUROJUST
(Participant)
EUROPOL
(Participant)
Coordination of investigations & prosecutions
Analysis &
Operational support

14. Gathering and exchange of information and evidence
Exchange of info and evidence in real time
Leader
&
Members
Leader
&
Members
On the sole basis
of the
JIT agreement
Access to information available at national level
Execution of acts necessary at national level
Access to information available at national level
Execution of investigation measures at national level

15. VII. Role of Eurojust in JITs
JITs and third States
Third States as participants in a “EU JIT”
See Recital 9 and Article 1(12) of the Framework Decision on JITs and Article 13(12) of the 2000 MLA convention
Third States as member of an “International JIT”
Possible only if legal basis exists such as:
International agreement signed and ratified by all interested Parties;
Bilateral or multilateral agreement between the involved States;
National legislations allows (e.g. article in code of penal procedure).

16. Eurojust promotes the use of JITs
Secretariat of the Network set up within Eurojust (Article 25a of the Eurojust Decision)
Organisation (with Europol) of the annual Meetings of the Network of National Contact points on JITs
“JITs projects”:
JITs website
Guide on legislation
Manual on JITs
Article 13 (5) Eurojust Decision: Obligation to inform Eurojust of JITs

17. on the Eurojust website
Available in all EU languages
on the Eurojust website
Welcome to Eurojust
01/12/2018

18. MH-17 – Ukraine ARTIC OCEAN NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN PACIFIC OCEAN
SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
PACIFIC OCEAN
NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
INDIAN OCEAN
ARTIC OCEAN

19. MH-17 – Ukraine ARTIC OCEAN NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN PACIFIC OCEAN
SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
PACIFIC OCEAN
NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
INDIAN OCEAN
ARTIC OCEAN

20. MH-17 – Ukraine Coordination meetings at Eurojust
SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
PACIFIC OCEAN
NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
INDIAN OCEAN
ARTIC OCEAN
Coordination meetings at Eurojust
BE, NL, UK, DE, Australia, Malaysia, Philippines, Canada, New Zealand, Indonesia, USA, Ukraine, Europol and Interpol involved
Discuss cooperation and ways of broadening and accelerating the investigations
Establishment of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT)
technical and forensic investigation in Ukraine