1. within the European Union With the support of the European Union
Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters
within the European Union
Version: 3.0
Last updated:
The European Judicial Training Network
With the support of the European Union

2. Version: 3.0 Last updated: 31.10. 2012
logo of the training organiser
Training organised by
(name of training organiser)
on (date) at (place)
Title (of the training)
Version: 3.0
Last updated:
The European Judicial Training Network
With the support of the European Union

3. Module 4 Key actors in judicial cooperation in criminal matters
Eurojust
The European Judicial Network (EJN)
The EJN tools
Joint investigation teams
Version: 3.0 Last updated:

4. EUROJUST
> Key actors in cooperation in criminal matters

5. Contents 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Objective 1.3. Competence
1.4. Referral to Eurojust
1.5. Composition
1.6. Action by Eurojust and by the national members
1.7. Information processing at Eurojust
1.8. Relations with partners
1.9. Perspectives
1.10. In practice...
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

6. 1.1. Introduction
Permanent judicial cooperation unit based in The Hague.
Not a supranational body, provides support to national judicial authorities
Intervention in bilateral, or rather, multilateral cases requiring coordination between national authorities
Legal framework: Decision of 28 February 2002 establishing Eurojust, as amended and strengthened by the Decision of 16 December 2008
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

7. 1.2. Objectives
to stimulate and improve the coordination, between the competent authorities of the Member States, of investigations and prosecutions in the Member States;
to improve cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States, in particular by facilitating the execution of international mutual legal assistance and the implementation of extradition requests;
to support otherwise the competent authorities of the Member States in order to render their investigations and prosecutions more effective.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

8. 1.3. Competence ‘Territorial’ competence
Principle: at least two Member States involved
In exceptional cases:
1 Member State and the Community (e.g. fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community)
1 Member State and 1 third State
Subject-matter competence (Article 4)
Exhaustive list but broad types of crime in line with Europol
+ Any offence committed together with one of the
offences referred to in the list
+ Any other offence, if a competent authority of a
Member State requests it
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

9. 1.4. Referral to Eurojust The principle:
No need for preliminary request => Eurojust may act at its initiative
Exceptions:
when only one Member State is involved
where assistance is requested for a type of crime that does not fall within Eurojust’s general competence
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

10. 1.5. Composition
Image translation: Chart: College / National Member / Correspondent. Flags : EU Level / National level
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

11. 1.5. Composition 1.5.1. The national members
Appointment: by each Member State and according to the organisation and distribution of internal competences
Location: in the Eurojust building (The Hague, Netherlands)
Status: determined by the Member State of origin
Duration: variable (min. 4 years from 2010)
Powers: variable, conferred by the Member State of origin. May include, in particular, the power to order investigative measures (see below)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

12. 1.5. Composition 1.5.1. The national members National situation
Indicate here: 
the name of your State’s national member
the duties they performed prior to their appointment
the date of their appointment and term of office
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

13. 1.5. Composition 1.5.2. Deputies and assistants
Mere possibility in the 2002 decision. Designation of 1 assistant and 1 deputy became mandatory with the 2008 decision.
Appointment and status depend on the national system
assistant =/= deputy: the deputy must be able to replace the national member, while this is only a possibility for the assistant
Location: usually Eurojust but not mandatory
National situation Indicate here the contact details of the assistant(s)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

14. 1.5. Composition 1.5.3. Eurojust College
Made up of the 27 national members
1 President + 2 Vice Presidents
Meets at least once a week
Involvement in some specific cases
Decisions by QM or 2/3 majority
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

15. 1.5. Composition 1.5.4. Staff Consists of European civil servants
Approximately 270 people
Administrative Director
Networks’ Secretariat at Eurojust (joint investigation teams, genocide)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

16. 1.5. Composition 1.5.5. National correspondents
National judicial authorities designated to act as preferential link with the national member
Not an obligatory point of passage between the national member and national judicial authorities!
National situation
Indicate here the contact details of the correspondents
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

17. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS)
Each Member State was to establish an ENCS by 4 June 2011 (2008 Decision)
Objective: to cement Eurojust’s national base and coordinate the activities of various key national players in EU judicial cooperation
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

18. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS)
Correspondents (including terrorism correspondent)
EJN correspondent + max 3 EJN contact points
National members of EU networks on:
Joint investigation teams
War crimes and crimes against humanity
Asset recovery offices
Combating corruption
 At least 8 people, for whom tasks related to the ENCS are in addition their national duties. No grouping in a separate body.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

19. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS)
The members of the ENCS have access to the Eurojust CMS (see below)
ENCS called upon to play a coordinating role at national level, beyond relations with Eurojust
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

20. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS)
National situation
List here the names and contact details of ENCS members and indicate how the ENCS operates at national level (e.g. periodic meetings)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

21. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.1. Who acts on behalf of Eurojust?
Action by national members as national authorities
Eurojust’s means of action in concrete cases
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

22. Principle: priority intervention by the national members
1.6. Eurojust’s action
Who acts for Eurojust?
Principle: priority intervention by the national members
Intervention of the College (Article 5) when:
so requested by one or more of the national members concerned by a case dealt with by Eurojust
the case involves investigations or prosecutions which have repercussions at Union level or which might affect Member States other than those directly concerned
a general question relating to the achievement of its objectives is involved
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

23. 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities
1.6. Eurojust’s action
Action by national members as national authorities
The 2002 Decision required that each MS defined the powers granted to its national member
The 2008 reform created a (more or less) common base of powers (Article 9a to 9e of the amended Eurojust Decision)
 3 categories of powers + broad possibility of derogation for the final two
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

24. 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities
1.6. Eurojust’s action
Action by national members as national authorities
Category 1: ‘ordinary’ powers (Art. 9b), i.e. without specific conditions  concerning the processing of requests (transmission, facilitation, supplementary information, follow-up)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

25. 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities
1.6. Eurojust’s action
Action by national members as national authorities
Category 2: delegated powers (Art. 9c): require authorisation on a case-by-case basis from the competent national authority.
Issuing and completing cooperation requests
Executing a cooperation request
Ordering an investigative measure decided upon at a coordination meeting
Authorising and coordinating a controlled delivery
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

26. 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities
1.6. Eurojust’s action
Action by national members as national authorities
Category 3: powers in urgent cases (Art. 9c): must be able to be exercised in urgent cases and if the competent authority is not identifiable or contactable:
Authorising and coordinating a controlled delivery
Executing a judicial cooperation request
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

27. 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities
1.6. Eurojust’s action
Action by national members as national authorities
Derogation for categories 2 (delegated powers) and 3 (powers in urgent cases):
A State should not grant such powers if it is contrary to its constitutional rules or certain fundamental aspects of the criminal justice system, but the national member must at least be competent to submit a proposal
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

28. 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities
1.6. Eurojust’s action
Action by national members as national authorities
National situation
List here the powers of the national member of your Member State when acting as national authority
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

29. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3. Eurojust’s means of action
The measures taken by Eurojust are not binding
--> but pressure at national level + role of the national members in the national system of origin
Description of the means:
Facilitating contacts
Organisation of operational meetings
Sending requests to national authorities
Judicial cooperation requests
Conflicts of jurisdiction
European arrest warrants
7. The European evidence warrant
8. Joint investigation teams
9. Other
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

30. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part I)
A Dutch prosecutor from Amsterdam is investigating a human trafficking ring. His investigation reveals links with Germany and Hungary.
If the human trafficking case is submitted to Eurojust, the latter will act through the Netherlands, German and Hungarian national members. They will then contact the national authorities concerned on behalf of Eurojust. The other national members do not, in principle, have to be involved unless the case requires intervention by the College (see below).
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

31. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.1. Facilitating contacts
= Key element of judicial cooperation
Practical example (part I – b)
By approaching his Eurojust national member, the Dutch prosecutor benefits from the direct contact that member makes with the German and Hungarian national members and then from the contact those members make with the national authorities.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

32. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.2. Organising operational meetings
--> 3 levels of operational meeting
Level 1 meetings:
periodic meetings of the College dealing with cases in which it has been decided that, given the importance of the case, Eurojust should act as the College.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

33. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Level 2 meetings:
internal Eurojust meetings involving the national members (and their assistants) of the countries concerned by a specific case.
Level 3 meetings:
meeting involving the national members of the countries concerned by a case + judicial and/or police authorities involved in the investigations in question.
Multiple advantages: logistical and financial support of Eurojust
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

34. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part II – a)
The human trafficking case raises questions of principle concerning conflicts of jurisdiction and the Dutch member wishes to refer it to the College. If the College accepts the request, the case will be closely monitored during the College’s regular meetings. It may also be the focus of level 2 and level 3 meetings.
The national member for the Netherlands, to whom the matter has been referred by the Amsterdam prosecutor, invites the German and Hungarian members to review the case. These Level 2 meetings will be organised on a regular basis.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

35. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part II – b)
The human trafficking case grows in scale and practical coordination problems emerge. It seems, in particular, that a number of simultaneous searches should be conducted in the various States. The Dutch, German and Hungarian national members each invite those leading the ongoing investigations (judges and/or police officers) in their State to a Level 3 meeting. This full-day meeting in The Hague benefits from logistics and interpreting provided via Eurojust, as well as assistance with any travel costs. This enables the simultaneous search operation to be initiated.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

36. 1.6. Eurojust’s action
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

37. 1.6. Eurojust’s action
Sending requests to national authorities
Sent by the College or the national member
Non-binding but formal requests (not simply contacts)
Eurojust can request (Articles 6 and 7):
to undertake an investigation or prosecution of specific acts
to accept that one of them may be in a better position to undertake an investigation or to prosecute specific acts
to coordinate between the competent authorities of the Member States concerned
to set up a joint investigation team in keeping with the relevant cooperation instruments
to provide it with any information that is necessary for it to carry out its tasks
to take any other measure justified for the investigation or prosecution
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

38. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part III)
The investigation into the human trafficking ring reveals that X heads the criminal organisation responsible for the offences. X is arrested in Germany but the victims are mainly located in Amsterdam. The Dutch and German judges are unable to reach agreement on conducting a prosecution. Eurojust, through the College or through the German Eurojust member, sends a formal request to the German judge asking that the proceedings be transferred to the Netherlands on grounds of the victims’ location and the fact that the most serious acts (forced prostitution) took place in the Netherlands.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

39. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.4. Judicial cooperation requests
Eurojust Decision of 2002: Eurojust may be used as a channel used to transmit cooperation requests between Member States in certain cases.
2008 Decision strengthening Eurojust: this rule became obsolete as national members received more extensive powers
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

40. 1.6. Eurojust’s action
Transmission of and follow-up to judicial cooperation requests
= ordinary powers (Art. 6b)  no derogation or conditions
The national member may still act as intermediary, including for the transmission and receipt of these requests.
Referral to Eurojust in the event of recurring problems (Article 7(3) of the Decision)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

41. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part IV – a)
It may prove useful, as mentioned above, to conduct simultaneous searches in different Member States. These searches may take place at the initiative of each national authority concerned, but may also be requested by a single national authority. The Dutch prosecutor may therefore issue formal requests for judicial assistance in order to have simultaneous searches conducted in Germany and Hungary.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

42. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part IV – b)
In this instance, and to ensure proper coordination from the stage when the requests are sent and received, the Dutch prosecutor may transmit the assistance requests to his national member, so that they may transmit them to the national authorities concerned, stressing coordinated execution.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

43. 1.6. Eurojust’s action
Executing and issuing judicial cooperation requests
Articles 9c and 9d:
Issuing a judicial cooperation request: on express delegation by the competent authority
Executing a judicial cooperation request:
on express delegation or
in urgent cases if the competent authority cannot be identified or contacted
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

44. 1.6. Eurojust’s action
Executing and issuing judicial cooperation requests
Double uncertainty: possibility for each Member State:
to go further than the 2008 decision
to make use of the derogation in Article 9e and therefore not grant such powers
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

45. 1.6. Eurojust’s action c) Execution of investigative measures
= to execute a measure in their Member State of origin for the investigation conducted in that State and not to execute a request for judicial cooperation from another Member State
Article 9c  double restriction:
An express delegation is required
The investigative measure must have been decided upon at a Eurojust coordination meeting
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

46. 1.6. Eurojust’s action c) Execution of investigative measures
Again, double uncertainty: possibility for each Member State:
to go further than the 2008 decision
to make use of the derogation in Article 9e and therefore not grant such powers
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

47. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.5. Conflicts of jurisdiction
2002 decision: Eurojust may ask a national authority to agree that another authority is better placed to conduct the prosecution
Framework Decision of 23 October 2009 on conflicts of jurisdiction: when two authorities are conducting parallel investigations into the same people and the same offences and fail to agree on resolution of the conflict of jurisdiction  obligation to refer to Eurojust ‘as necessary’
2008 Decision strengthening Eurojust (Article 7(2)): automatic referral to the College when two national members fail to agree on a conflict of jurisdiction assurance of having an opinion from Eurojust
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

48. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.6. The European arrest warrant
2002 EAW Framework Decision:
Article 16: in the event of multiple EAWs, possibility of seeking Eurojust’s opinion
Article 17: obligation to inform Eurojust when the fixed time limits for deciding on the execution of the EAW are not met
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

49. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.7. The European evidence warrant
2008 Framework Decision on the European evidence warrant:
when a national authority is considering making use of the territoriality clause to refuse execution of a warrant, it must consult Eurojust before taking the decision. If Eurojust's opinion is not followed, the Member State concerned shall inform the Council.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

50. 1.6. Eurojust’s action
Support for and participation in joint investigation teams
Eurojust and the national members have a natural connection with the joint investigation teams, since they were set up for the same types of case (serious, complex, transnational cases)
See below
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

51. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.9. Other forms of support
No exhaustive list  Eurojust may assist national authorities by any appropriate means, provided this is not contrary to the Eurojust Decision
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

52. 1.7. Data processing
Data processing takes on a new dimension with the 2008 Decision strengthening Eurojust.
The Case Management System tool
Transmission of information to Eurojust and vice versa
Who transmits the information?
Purpose of data processing
Protection and confidentiality of data
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

53. 1.7. Data processing
The Case Management System tool
The Case Management System (CMS) = Eurojust's information system = two tools:
the index
temporary work files
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

54. The index: 1.7. Data processing 1.7.1. The Case Management System tool
Gateway to the temporary work files
Each national member determines what data from the temporary work file will be visible in the index
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

55. b) Temporary work files
1.7. Data processing
The Case Management System tool
b) Temporary work files
Temporary work files are created by the national member concerned for each concrete case dealt with by Eurojust and for which information is transmitted to them
Cases in which Eurojust’s intervention has been requested
Cases for which information has been transmitted to Eurojust without requesting its assistance (see below)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

56. b) Temporary work files
1.7. Data processing
The Case Management System tool
b) Temporary work files
The work file contains data on the facts (perpetrator, victims, type of offence etc.) and the proceedings (relevant authorities, judicial cooperation requests)
Who has access to the files?
Who updates the files?
Links between the files
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

57. 1.7. Data processing
Transmission of information to Eurojust and vice versa
The national authorities send Eurojust the necessary information to enable Eurojust to provide its support.
2005 Terrorism Decision: provides for obligations regarding systematic transmission of information to Eurojust
2008 Decision Strengthening Eurojust (Article 13a): systematic transmission beyond the area of terrorism
Setting up of joint investigation teams and results of their work
Records relating to at least three MS and for which cooperation requests were sent to at least two MS
Feedback by Eurojust
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 57

58. 1.7. Data processing 1.7.1.3. Who transmits information to Eurojust?
The national authority contacting its national member to request that member’s assistance transmits the information directly to them
Systematic transmission of information to Eurojust: the ENCS must ensure this (but not necessarily do so itself) and the information must be transmitted in a structured way.
Initially, the information is transmitted on the basis of standard forms produced by Eurojust.
ENCS members will in future be able to encode the information directly in the CMS.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 58

59. 1.7. Data processing 1.7.1.4. Purpose of data processing
No clearly stated objective in the Decision. Examples include:
facilitating management of files for which Eurojust’s assistance is requested
uncovering links between different criminal cases and thus promoting cooperation and coordination of investigations and prosecutions
gaining an overview of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and its challenges.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 59

60. 1.7. Data processing 1.7.1.4. Data protection and confidentiality
Strict personal data protection framework
‘Need to know’ principle
Classified information
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 60

61. 1.8. Relations with authorities other than the national authorities
Relations with Europol
Eurojust and Europol are natural partners
Cooperation agreement signed in 2004 and strengthened in 2009
Operational level:
Analysis work files
Europol’s participation in a Eurojust operational coordination meeting
Reciprocal information when the information provided by one leads to a cross-reference with information contained in a database of the other
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 61

62. 1.8. Relations with authorities other than the national authorities
Relations with Europol
Example (extract from 2011 annual report)
In 2009, information suggested that a criminal group had rigged the result of 170 football matches by bribing football players, referees and others in Germany, Hungary, and other European countries. The German and Hungarian authorities opened an investigation in November and December Police forces in the 2 MS cooperated intensely to gather evidence. Hungary sent a MLA request to Germany to obtain evidence gathered in the German investigation.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 62

63. 1.8. Relations with authorities other than the national authorities
Relations with Europol
Example (continued)
As the Hungarian case developed, links to Croatia and Slovenia were detected. Eurojust held a coordination meeting where judicial and law enforcement authorities from the affected MS exchanged information. Eurojust also assisted with the drafting of judicial cooperation requests to ensure that matters could be progressed efficiently. Eurojust worked closely with Europol, which provided operational and analytical support.
[ex_mod4_euj_2]
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 63

64. 1.8. Relations with authorities other than the national authorities
Contacts with third countries and international organisations
Memorandum of Understanding
Individual cases: Eurojust may, in limited cases, receive and transmit mutual assistance requests issued from or transmitted to a third country (Article 27b)
Designation of ‘Eurojust’ contact points in certain third countries
Liaison magistrate seconded to Eurojust
Formal cooperation agreement with some States
2008 Decision strengthening Eurojust: possibility of seconding a Eurojust liaison magistrate in a third country
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 64

65. 1.8. Relations with authorities other than the national authorities
Cooperation with OLAF
(OLAF) = anti-fraud office = independent body integrated within the European Commission, responsible for detecting and investigating ‘Community fraud’ cases.
OLAF is an administrative body with investigative powers within this framework but has no powers of criminal investigation.
OLAF nevertheless has a team of judicial officers  to facilitate links with the national judicial authorities for the judicial review of offences detected by OLAF.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 65

66. 1.8. Relations with authorities other than the national authorities
Cooperation with OLAF
Eurojust and OLAF have competence in Community fraud  clear interaction
E.g. administrative investigation conducted by OLAF highlights large-scale fraud (such as VAT ‘carousel’ fraud) affecting several Member States, allegations of corruption against members of the EP.
practical agreement signed on 24 September 2008
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 66

67. 1.9 Future perspectives Article 85 TFEU Article 86 TFEU
Regulations on the structure, operation, field and tasks of Eurojust
Ordinary legislative procedure
Article 86 TFEU
European Public Prosecutor’s Office
From Eurojust
Against the financial interests of the EU
Probably enhanced cooperation (at least 9 EM)
Future Commission proposals (2013)

68. 1.10. In practice... Contacting Eurojust How?
Contacting the national member
Contact method: unimportant (phone, , letter, fax)
In principle, no intermediary required
No direct contact in principle with a member national of another Member State
In urgent cases: Eurojust on-call coordination (OCC)
Result of the 2008 Decision
Freephone number
= contact point reachable 24/7
Possibility of sending the request to the OCC, which will contact the national member of origin and the national members of the other States concerned to put them in immediate contact
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

69. 1.9. In practice... Contacting Eurojust In what circumstances?
Bilateral cases: usually referred to the EJN contact points rather than to Eurojust, but possibility of referral to Eurojust (e.g. Eurojust’s intervention in conflicts of jurisdiction)
Multilateral cases: referred to Eurojust, particularly if coordination is needed and it is a serious and complex case
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 69

70. 1.9. In practice... Being contacted by Eurojust How?
The national member may contact the national authorities directly
No specific format (phone, fax, , letter) unless it is a formal request (Article 6 and 7)
In what circumstances?
Formal request
Informal request
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

71. 1.9. In practice...
Translation: Title : case evolution Multilateral / Bilateral / Total
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 71

72. 1.9. In practice...
Translation : Title: bilateral/multilateral cases. Multilateral / Bilateral / Total
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust 72

73. 2. The European Judicial Network
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

74. Contents 2.1. Legal framework 2.2. Introduction 2.3. Illustration
2.4. Composition
2.5. Operation
2.6. Eurojust-EJN relations
2.7. In practice
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

75. 2.1. Legal framework
Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network (and repealing the Joint Action of 29 June 1998)
Article 25a of the Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust, as amended by Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

76. 2.2. Introduction Concept:
Established in 1998: first major practical initiative for EU judicial cooperation
Made up of ‘contact points’ who may be contacted by any judicial officer of an EU Member State encountering a practical difficulty in connection with judicial cooperation
Development of several software tools designed for judicial officers
Establishment:
Joint Action of 29 June 2008 (repealed by the 2008 Decision on the EJN)
Secretariat is part of Eurojust
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

77. 2.3. Illustration Practical example
A Polish prosecutor in Warsaw wishes to have a search executed at a recently purchased residence of a Polish national in the coastal area of Tavira in Portugal. After consulting the judicial Atlas available on the EJN website (see below), the Polish prosecutor sends his request to the Tavira ‘Tribunal da Comarca’ on 10 May 2005.
Having received no reply after two months and after trying in vain to make direct contact with the relevant Portuguese court, the Polish prosecutor contacts one of the Polish contact points (a prosecutor in the national prosecution office) to explain the situation and ask him to intervene.
[ex_mod4_ejn_1]
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

78. 2.3. Illustration Practical example
The Polish contact point telephones the Portuguese contact point, whom he met recently at an EJN meeting. After learning of the situation, the Portuguese contact point asks his colleague to fax him a copy of the mutual assistance request. The Portuguese contact point then gets in touch with one of his colleagues at the ‘Tribunal da Comarca’ to trace the mutual assistance request.
[ex_mod4_ejn_1]
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

79. 2.3. Illustration Practical example
During this exchange, the Tavira judicial officer in charge of the case informs the Portuguese contact point that he has not taken action on the request because it contains very little information concerning the description of the acts justifying the search.
Through the intermediary of the two Portuguese and Polish contact points, the judicial officers in charge of the case in each of the two Member States are able to re-establish contact and understand each other. The mutual assistance request is completed by the Warsaw prosecutor, and then executed without difficulty by the Tavira judicial officer.
[ex_mod4_ejn_1]
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

80. 2.4. Composition of the EJN 2.4.1. The contact points Choice
Designated by each State: judicial officers and/or representatives of the central authority for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters
Experience of international judicial cooperation
(in principle) language skills
Sometimes ‘local’ authorities', sometimes 'national' authorities
Currently (October 2009): almost 400 contact points
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

81. 2.4. Composition of the EJN 2.4.1. The contact points Austria 6 France51
Norway 7
Belgium 8
Greece
Poland 15
Bulgaria 2
Croatia
Portugal
Switzerland
Hungary
Romania
Cyprus 3
Ireland 4
Sweden
Czech Republic
11.
Iceland
Slovenia
Germany 18
Italy 44
Slovakia
Denmark 5.
Luxembourg
Turkey 5
Estonia
Latvia
United Kingdom 23
European Commission
Malta
Finland 13
Netherlands 12
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN 81

82. 2.4. Composition of the EJN 2.4.1. The contact points
Enter the contact details of the contact points for your State (full name, job title, postal address, , telephone + territorial competence if applicable)
[nat_mod4_ejn_1]
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

83. 2.4. Composition of the EJN 2.4.1. The contact points
‘Active intermediary’
Facilitate cooperation by placing in contact
with a judicial authority of the same State
or with one of its counterparts in another Member State
The contact points are therefore ‘at the service’ of the national judicial authorities.
Presidency
Trio Presidency
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

84. 2.4. Composition of the EJN 2.4.3.The Secretariat
Currently consists of 5 people.
Does not intervene in specific cases.
Tasks: internal management of the network and development of IT tools
Keeping a record of decisions and projects
Information sharing

85. 2.4. Composition of the EJN 2.4.4. Other components
national correspondents (one for each Member State) = EJN contact points but who, in addition to their contact point duties, are also called on to meet and discuss matters concerning the EJN’s internal functioning.
Correspondents responsible for technical aspects: these may be, but are not necessarily, contact points. They ensure that information relating to their Member State is properly included and updated in the EJN’s IT tools.
Enter the contact details of the EJN correspondent (full name, job title, postal address, , telephone)
[nat_mod4_ejn_1a]
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN 85

86. 2.5. Operation of the EJN 4 modes of operation:
Action by the contact points in specific cases
Meetings
Plenary sessions
National correspondents
Correspondents responsible for technical aspects
Availability of practical information from the EJN
Secure network
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

87. 2.6. Relationship between Eurojust and the EJN
Eurojust and the EJN are complementary  structural inks:
the EJN Secretariat is part of the Eurojust administration
the Eurojust national coordination system includes at least one, and up to three, EJN contact points;
one of the tasks of the ENCS is to help determine whether a case needs to be handled with the assistance of Eurojust or of the European Judicial Network
No pre-established dividing line between cases that should be referred to Eurojust and those where assistance should instead be requested from an EJN contact point.
The main question is whether there is a need for ‘coordination’, in which case referral to Eurojust is preferable.
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

88. 2.7. When and how should the EJN be used?
Via the contact points or by using the web site -->
Contact a contact point
To overcome various problems:
to draft a mutual assistance request correctly
to re-establish contact
to understand the legislation of another State
Contacting a contact point of own Member State is recommended
Where: database on the EJN website
password
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN 88

89. 2.7. When and how should the EJN be used?
Via the contact points or by using the website -->
Use the EJN tools
Atlas
Contact points database
Fiches Belges
Compendium
on the website:
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN

90. 3. The EJN tools
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN tools

91. 3.1. Atlas
=> Identifies the competent authority in the requested State
to receive a mutual legal assistance request: promoting direct contact between locally competent judicial authorities
to receive a European arrest warrant in the State of execution (+ limitation periods and linguistic procedure)
+ to receive another decision to execute on the basis of the mutual recognition principle (in development)
‘Search Atlas’
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN tools

92. 3.2. Contact points database
provides detailed information (name, telephone number, address, languages spoken, etc.) about each of the contact points.
the contact points
only section that is password-protected:
Login: ****
Password: ****
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN tools

93. 3.3. The Fiches Belges
standardised practical information on the execution of different investigative measures in each of the Member States
why use it?
how to use it?
Information depends on the State of execution
More than 40 measures divided into 8 categories
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN tools

94. 3.4. Compendium
this tool helps the user to draft a judicial cooperation request (including a European arrest warrant or soon a decision for execution under the mutual recognition principle)
> Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > EJN tools

95. 4. Joint investigation teams
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

96. Contents 4.1. General information 4.2. Introduction
4.3. Setting up a joint investigation team
4.4. How a joint investigation team operates
4.5. Follow-up to a joint investigation team
4.6. Further information
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

97. 4.1. General information
Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States of the EU of 29 May 2000
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams
For application with non-EU countries: Article 20 of the 2nd additional protocol to the 1959 Convention
National situation
List here references from the relevant national legislation
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

98. 4.2. Introduction
Concept: bringing together investigators from several Member States to facilitate mutual legal assistance and improve investigative efficiency
Context of transnational investigations
For a defined purpose and for a limited time
Model Agreement adopted by the Council
Europol and Eurojust have published:
a manual on joint investigation teams: at the time of this module’s completion, the manual was being revised and was not available in electronic format. It should soon be available on the websites of Eurojust and Europol.
a guide to national laws concerning joint investigation teams.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

99. 4.3. Setting up the team 4.3.1. In what circumstances? Never mandatory
Used for particularly serious and complex cases in the context of transnational investigations where coordinated and concerted action by the States concerned is necessary
Two areas are illustrative examples (see the manual on joint investigation teams):
- investigation into drug trafficking where it is immediately clear that the trafficker’s residence differs from the destination of the drugs
- terrorism case in which the place of an attack being prepared differs from the place where the evidence is gathered.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

100. 4.3. Setting up the team 4.3.2. Scope:
Material: specific, defined purpose
Temporal: time-limited
Territorial: between EU Member States, however
Possible with other States of the Council of Europe: if ratification of the 2nd Additional Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance of 1959
Nothing to prevent the involvement of a third State in the team, but the representatives of this State will have limited powers.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams
100

101. 4.3. Setting up the team
Request to set up a joint investigation team
= start of the procedure to set up the team. However: important that the authorities concerned (+ probably Europol and Eurojust) meet before the formal request is sent, so that they can best adapt the request to national specificities.
Origin of the request: one of the States involved, Europol or Eurojust
Request sent direct to the competent authorities of the States involved
Importance (but no obligation) of involving Europol and Eurojust (and sometimes OLAF)
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

102. 4.3. Setting up the team Practical example
In August 2010, French police stopped a lorry containing over 2,000 kg of cannabis. Links with Belgium, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia were established and Eurojust was asked to assist. Three coordination meetings were held at Eurojust, with the participation of Europol, to promote the exchange of information to target the entire criminal network. The exchange of information revealed that a Dutch organised crime group was involved and that a JIT should be established. This was done in February 2011, and the JIT received Eurojust funding to support its operational activities. In May 2011, several arrests were carried out in Belgium and France and search warrants executed in the Netherlands, successfully disrupting the criminal group.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

103. 4.3.4. Agreement for setting up a team Crucial and complex step
4.3. Setting up the team
Agreement for setting up a team
Crucial and complex step
Possible support (expertise and logistics) from Europol and/or Eurojust
Who concludes the agreement?
Depends on the national law
What must the agreement contain?
Model agreement for setting up a joint investigation team
Indicate the type of authority authorised in your country to conclude such an agreement
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

104. In Italy the team leader is….
4.3. Setting up the team
Example
Several meetings are organised with Europol and Eurojust’s logistical support to draft agreements and prepare the proper functioning of the team.
In the United Kingdom the team leader is… and the members are investigators from…
In France the team leader is the Public Prosecutor of Nantes and the members are investigators from the national police.
In Italy the team leader is….
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

105. 4.4. Operation 4.4.1. Composition of the team Different ‘profiles’
Leader (always national authority of the Member State of operation)
The national members of the Member State of operation
Seconded members
The members of Europol, Eurojust or OLAF
Any representatives of other bodies or third countries
Powers within the team
Rule of thumb: action under the direction of the leader of the team, and compliance with the law of the Member State of operation.
Powers of the national members: in accordance with the law of the Member State of operation (normal duties)
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

106. 4.4. Operation 4.4.2. Powers within the team
Powers of the seconded members:
must be described in the agreement
may be present during the investigative measures, except where otherwise decided
possibility of performing investigative measures if the Member State of secondment and the Member State of operation agree
Indicate the powers entrusted to seconded members by national legislation when your State is the Member State of operation
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

107. 4.4. Operation 4.4.2. Powers within the team
Powers of members of the EU actors
Europol
Participation expressly provided for
Passive presence during investigative measures
OLAF
Uncertain powers
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

108. 4.4. Operation 4.4.2. Powers within the team
Powers of members of the EU actors
Eurojust 
national members have the right, in principle, to participate in joint investigation teams in which their Member State of origin is a partner (Article 9f of the Eurojust Decision) but Member States may make this participation subject to the agreement of the competent authority. Even if such agreement is necessary, participation is automatic when the joint investigation team in question receives EU funding.
national members may participate in the team either as Eurojust representative or as national authority. It is for each Member State to make this choice (Article 9f of the Eurojust Decision). Impact in terms of powers.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams
108

109. 4.4. Operation 4.4.2. Powers within the team
Powers of members of the EU actors
Eurojust 
Eurojust’s participation may be useful from a logistics perspective, due to experience of joint investigation teams’ operations or links with other cases.
the setting up of a joint investigation team and the results of its work must always be notified to Eurojust (Article 13(5) of the Eurojust Decision).
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams
109

110. 4.4. Operation
Practical example
While the joint investigation team is operating in Italy, a major search in an illicit laboratory is scheduled.
This search is conducted according to Italian law and under the direction of the Italian team leader. In line with what was set out in the agreement, it is understood that the seconded French and British members will take an active part in the search but not in any use of force that may be required.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

111. 4.4. Operation Practical example (continued)
A Europol official specialising in combating drugs will be present but will remain passive during the operation.
The Italian Eurojust national member will be present as the Italian authority.
The French and British Eurojust members will also be present as national authorities. The Dutch Eurojust member, responsible within Eurojust for joint investigation teams in general, will, like the Europol member, be present but remain passive during the search. ]
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

112. 4.4. Operation 4.4.3. Exchange of information (Article 1.9)
Principle: free exchange of information to which the team members have access in their Member States of origin --> considerable advantage as it overcomes legal obstacles to the exchange of information, BUT does not prejudge conditions of admissibility of evidence.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

113. 4.4. Operation Example (continued)
During the search in Italy a vehicle registered in the United Kingdom is seized. The British members of the team immediately contact their colleagues in London by telephone and receive the vehicle’s registration details direct, and therefore the name of the owner. They also ask whether the national police records already contain information about the individual in question. The various items of information communicated are added to the file held by the joint investigation team.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

114. 4.4. Operation 4.4.4. Execution of investigative measures
Principle: the law governing execution of an investigative measure is the law of the State in which it must be executed (locus regit actum)
New: seconded members of a team may ask their own competent authorities to take investigative measures without using the channel of conventional mutual legal assistance
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

115. 4.4. Operation
Practical example (continued from slide 110)
A mobile telephone is seized during the search in Italy. By order of the Italian judicial officer, issued as in a national case, an analysis of recent communications is requested from the Italian telecommunications operator concerned. This analysis reveals recurrent communications with a French mobile telephone number. The French investigators contact the French judicial officer who is a member of the team and located in France at that time. In France, that judicial officer orders that the number in question be placed under surveillance. The results of that surveillance are added to the file put together by the joint investigation team.
[ex_mod4_jit_1.5]
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

116. 4.5. Follow-ups 4.5.1. Risks of conflict of jurisdiction.
No binding rule on this, but possibility of addressing this issue in the agreement establishing the team and/or involving Eurojust
Subsequent use of the information obtained
for the purposes for which the team has been set up
subject to the prior consent of the Member State where the information became available, for detecting, investigating and prosecuting other criminal offences.
for preventing an immediate and serious threat to public security, and without prejudice to subparagraph (b) if a criminal investigation is subsequently opened
for other purposes to the extent that this is agreed between Member States setting up the team.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams

117. 4.6. Further information...
Network of contact points for joint investigation teams
Set up in 2005
Secretariat is part of Eurojust
Meets regularly to discuss best practice for setting up joint investigation teams.
The contents and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the EJTN, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of these contents and opinions.
> Module 4: Actors > Joint investigation teams