annual report 2014 - eurojusteurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/corporate/eurojust annual...2014 annual...
TRANSCRIPT
Annual Report 2014
Austr
ia Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and
German
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce
Hunga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a
Netherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c
Denmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slove
nia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en
United
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a
Netherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Czec
h Rep
ublic
Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
Kingd
om A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land
Portu
gal R
oman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land
Italy
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en
United
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Czec
h Rep
ublic
Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a
Netherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia
Cypru
s Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Czec
h Rep
ublic
Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c
Denmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
Kingd
om A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en
United
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom
© Eurojust, 2015
This publication covers the period 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014
Catalogue number: QP-AA-15-001-EN-C ISBN: 978-92-95084-98-8ISSN: 1831-4279DOI: 10.2812/23927
For enquiries:
Phone: + 31 70 412 5000E-mail: [email protected]: www.eurojust.europa.eu
Eurojust Annual Report 2014
Eurojust’s goal is to stimulate and improve the coordination of investigations and prosecutions and
cooperation between the competent authorities in the Member States in relation to serious cross-border crime
32014 Annual Report
Table of contents
Note re Eurojust Decision ........................................................................................................................................................................5Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................................................5Foreword .........................................................................................................................................................................................................7Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................................................................8
1. Eurojust at a glance / Eurojust’s tools ...................................................................................12
1.1 Eurojust at a glance ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
1.2 Eurojust’s tools ......................................................................................................................................................................... 131.2.1 Coordination meetings ...................................................................................................................................................131.2.2 Coordination centres ......................................................................................................................................................171.2.3 Information exchange and the Eurojust CMS ......................................................................................................191.2.4 Eurojust and JITs ..............................................................................................................................................................21
2. Eurojust casework ...........................................................................................................................26
2.1 Eurojust casework in priority crime areas ................................................................................................................... 272.1.1 Fraud .....................................................................................................................................................................................282.1.2 Corruption ...........................................................................................................................................................................292.1.3 Criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (PIF offences) ....................................................292.1.4 MOCGs ....................................................................................................................................................................................302.1.5 Drug trafficking ................................................................................................................................................................312.1.6 Cybercrime ..........................................................................................................................................................................332.1.7 I llegal immigration ..........................................................................................................................................................352.1.8 Terrorism .............................................................................................................................................................................352.1.9 THB ........................................................................................................................................................................................36
2.2 Eurojustassistanceinotherfieldsofcriminalactivity ............................................................................................. 382.2.1 Money laundering ............................................................................................................................................................382.2.2 Environmental crime ......................................................................................................................................................382.2.3 Maritime piracy .................................................................................................................................................................382.2.4 Eurojust Contact Point for Child Protection .........................................................................................................38
OperationBlackShades:Caseoftheyear ....................................................................................................................................... 39
2.3 Eurojust’s partners .................................................................................................................................................................. 422.3.1 Cooperation partner: Europol ....................................................................................................................................422.3.2 Cooperation partner: OLAF .........................................................................................................................................422.3.3 JHA Agencies cooperation .............................................................................................................................................432.3.4 Third States and organisations outside the European Union .......................................................................44
3. Challenges and best practice ......................................................................................................48
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 493.2 Drugtrafficking .......................................................................................................................................................................... 493.3 Cybercrime ................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
4. Eurojust focus of the year: the European Arrest Warrant ..........................................52
5. Eurojust’s Administration ............................................................................................................58
4 2014 Annual Report
6. Eurojust and practitioner networks ......................................................................................62
6.1 EJN ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 636.2 JITs Network ................................................................................................................................................................................ 636.3 Genocide Network .................................................................................................................................................................... 646.4 Consultative Forum .................................................................................................................................................................. 64 Theme: Evaluation and future perspectives .......................................................................................66
Follow-up to Council Conclusions ..........................................................................................................69
Public access to documents ........................................................................................................................70
Casework 2002 – 2014 ......................................................................................................................................................................................9Bilateral/multilateral cases 2010 – 2014 ................................................................................................................................................9Bilateral/multilateral cases per Member State ..................................................................................................................................10Requesting/requested Member States ....................................................................................................................................................10Eurojust at work in 2014 ..............................................................................................................................................................................14Coordination meetings ..................................................................................................................................................................................16Third States, cooperation partners and international organisations involved in coordination meetings ...............16Coordination centres ......................................................................................................................................................................................18Number of Article 13 cases ..........................................................................................................................................................................20JITs supported by Eurojust and the main crime types .....................................................................................................................21Eurojust JIT funding (December 2009 - August 2014) ....................................................................................................................232014 timeline .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24Eurojust casework in priority crime areas ...........................................................................................................................................27Main crime types involving third States .................................................................................................................................................44Top ten third States in Eurojust casework ............................................................................................................................................45Cases by Liaison Prosecutors 2010 to 2014 .........................................................................................................................................45
Charts and figures:
52014 Annual Report
Note re Eurojust Decision
EurojustDecision–theCouncilDecisionof28Febru-ary2002settingupEurojustwithaviewtoreinforc-ingthefightagainstseriouscrime,aslastamendedbyCouncilDecision2009/426/JHAof16December2008onthestrengtheningofEurojust–willbereferredto
Acronyms and abbreviations
CMS Case Management SystemCOSI Council Standing Committee on Internal SecurityEAW European Arrest WarrantEJN European Judicial NetworkENCS Eurojust National Coordination SystemEMPACT EuropeanMultidisciplinaryPlatformagainstCriminalThreatsEPPO EuropeanPublicProsecutor’sOfficeJIT Joint investigation teamJSB JointSupervisoryBodyofEurojustMASP Multi-Annual Strategic PlanMLA Mutual legal assistanceMOCG (Mobile) Organised crime groupMPJM Maritime Piracy Judicial MonitorMTIC Missing Trader Intra-CommunityOAP Operational Action PlanOCC On-Call CoordinationOCG Organised crime groupPIF ProtectionofthefinancialinterestsoftheEuropeanUnionSOCTA Serious Organised Crime Threat AssessmentTCM Terrorism Convictions MonitorTE-SAT Terrorism Situation and Trend ReportTFEU TreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnionTHB Traffickinginhumanbeings
in this report as the ‘Eurojust Decision’. A consoli-datedversionoftheEurojustDecision,preparedbytheCouncilGeneralSecretariatforinformationpur-posesonly,isavailableonourwebsiteat www.eu-rojust.europa.eu.
Eurojust, as an EU actor, is committed to playing its role as a centre of legal and judicial expertise and to closely
cooperating with all partners involved
72014 Annual Report
Foreword
It is with great pleasure that I present to you Euro-just’s 13th Annual Report. The report provides an overviewofEurojust’sdevelopmentsandmainac-
tivities,anditscontributionsandsupporttoimprovejudicial cooperation among the Member States in 2014.Eurojust’scaseworkisgrowingeachyear,andthis year was no exception.
The number of cases for which Member States re-quested Eurojust’s assistance increased by 14.5 per centto1804cases.Eurojust’suniquetool,coordina-tionmeetings, brought1882externalpractitionerstoEurojust–includingprosecutors,judgesandpoliceofficers–tostreamlineoperations, facilitatecoordi-nation and cooperation in strategic and operational actions,andresolvelegalandpracticaldifficultiesre-sultingfromdifferencesinthe30legalsystemsintheEuropean Union. In addition, coordination centresprovidedeffectivereal-timesupport.
JITs,alongwithcoordinationmeetingsandcoordina-tioncentres,assisttheMemberStatesinthecollectionandconnectionofvitalcase-relatedinformation.Thesetoolsprovidespeedy,results-drivencooperation.
Eurojust continues to support the setting up and run-ning of JITs, with the number of JITs supported byEurojust increasing by more than 20 per cent. The number of JITs funded by Eurojust also increasedsubstantially, showing that this tool is being usedmore and more by the Member States.
Inthisyear’sreport,thefocusisontheEAWaswellas challenges and best practice in drug traffickingandcybercrimecases.Eurojustheldthreeseminars,on drug trafficking, cybercrime and the EAW. The
drugtraffickingseminarwasdedicatedtocontrolleddeliveries, new psychoactive substances and (pre)precursors,thecybercrimeseminartotheadmissi-bilityofevidence,andtheEAWseminartoproblemsandbestpracticeintheoperationoftheEAW.Theseareas raise considerable challenges and difficultiesforpractitioners,andwemustworkcloselytogethertofindeffectivesolutions.
Wealsofocusonacybercrimecase,BlackShades,oneofseveral success stories in 2014. These successes result fromthegreaterrecognitionanduseEurojustisexperi-encing,aswitnessedbytheincreaseincasework.
Continued progress is being made in supporting and strengthening coordination and cooperation between the national investigation and prosecution authorities oftheMemberStateswhendealingwithcasesofseri-ouscross-bordercrime,alsowithregardtoenhancingcooperationwiththirdStates.In2014,EurojustsignedacooperationagreementwithMoldova,strengtheneditsrelationshipwiththeJHAAgencies,andsignedtwoMemorandaofUnderstanding,withFRAandEMCDDA.
TheSixthRoundofMutualEvaluationswas finalisedand Eurojust adopted an Action Plan to address the recommendations.In2014,workalsobeganontheex-ternal evaluation. These assessments will contribute totheeffectiveandefficientfunctioningofEurojust.
Eurojust welcomed six new National Members and is looking forward to thearrivalof thenewLiaisonProsecutorfromSwitzerlandin2015.
To effectively prevent and fight serious cross-bordercrimeand terrorism, amultidisciplinary approach isessential, based on enhanced information exchangeamongdifferentactorsandincreaseduseoftheavaila-bletools.Eurojust,asanEUactor,iscommittedtoplay-ing its roleasacentreof legaland judicialexpertiseand to closely cooperating with all partners involved.
I hope you enjoy reading this report.
Michèle CONINSXPresident of Eurojust
8 2014 Annual Report
Executive Summary
` The number of cases forwhichMember StatesrequestedEurojust’sassistanceinfightingseriouscross-border crime increased by 14.5 per cent,from1576casesin2013to1804in2014.
` To support coordination and cooperation between thenationalauthorities,coordination meetings (197), coordination centres (10) and joint in-vestigation teamswereused,andtheparticipa-tion of Europol (98) and OLAF (3) in Eurojust’scoordination meetings increased.
The number of JITs supported by Eurojust was122,45ofwhichwerenew,beingformedin2014.Eurojustalsofinanciallysupported67JITs.
` An increase in Eurojust’s casework can be not-ed in the followingcrimeareas:drug trafficking,fraud,cybercrime,PIFcrimes,illegalimmigration,corruption and money laundering.
` On 266 occasions, Eurojust’s assistance was re-quested in the execution of European Arrest Warrants.Inaddition,Eurojustfocuseditsactivi-ties on the EAW and reported on its casework and experience,andorganisedastrategicseminaronthe subject.
` Secure Network Connections were set up with six Member States - bringing the total to 11 con-nections - to facilitate the safe exchange of in-formation.
` Eurojust participated in the development of the2014-2017 policy cycle and the 2015 Operation-al Action Plans. Eurojust also posted a College member at EC3 in July.
` Eurojust organised two strategic seminars in combination with the meetings of the Consulta-tive Forum under the Greek Presidency and the Italian Presidency:
– The European Arrest Warrant: which way for-ward? andthe7thmeetingoftheConsultativeForum on 10 and 11 June.
– Towards Greater Cooperation in Freezing and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime: a Prac-titioners’ Approachandthe8thmeetingoftheConsultative Forum on 11 and 12 December.
` Eurojust also organised three strategic meetings and one tactical meeting:
– Annual strategic meeting on terrorism on 4 June and the tactical meeting on terrorism on 5 June.
– Strategic meeting on drug trafficking on 29-30 September.
– Strategic meeting, Cybercrime – rising to the challenges of the 21st century, on 19 and 20November.
` Eurojust held a meeting of the Eurojust contactpoints and Liaison Prosecutors on 16 and 17 Oc-toberandthe2ndmeetingoftheNationalCorre-spondentsforEurojuston27November.
` Eurojust published, amongst others, the CBRN-EHandbook,theTCMandtheReportontheStrate-gic Project on Environmental Crime.
` Eurojust also deals in this annual report with the challengesandbestpracticeidentifiedinrespectof controlled deliveries, new psychoactive sub-stances and (pre)precursors, and the gatheringandadmissibilityofevidenceincybercrimecases.
` Eurojust signed a Cooperation Agreement with Moldova on 10 July, and Memoranda of Under-standing with EMCDDA on 15 July and FRA on 3 November.
` Eurojust’s budgetfor2014wasEUR33.6million.Budget implementation was 99.82 per cent.
` The Sixth Round of Mutual Evaluations was concludedandthefinalreportwasadoptedbytheCouncil in December.
The external evaluation project, in accordancewith Article 41 of the Eurojust Decision, waslaunched in 2014.
` Eurojust published its new Multi-Annual Strat-egy 2016-2018.
` The College in April contributed in writing to the draftEurojustRegulation.TheCounciladoptedthepartialgeneralapproachonthisdraftinDecember.
Casework 2002 – 2014
Bilateral/multilateral cases 2010 – 2014
Closed
Ongoing in 2014
Opened and closed in 2014
Opened and ongoing in 2014
Total
2014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002
381
588
770
300202
10831181
1350 1373 1374 13241200
682
1122
376209675122
12
2
1
1804
15761533
144114241372
1193
1085
771
588
381300
202
* Cases involving one Member State and one third State, cooperation partner or international organisation
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
300
112
1392
1255
321309
1224
289
1152
253
1171
1804
15761533
14411424
Articles 3.2 and 3.3 EJD * Bilateral Multilateral Total
92014 Annual Report
Requesting/requested Member States
Bilateral/multilateral cases per Member State
* The cases registered by the College are not included in the map, only in the table
Bilateral Multilateral
Coll * 5BE 50 16BG 80 1CZ 67 17DK 43 9DE 39 20EE 25 2IE 13 4EL 32 4ES 70 17FR 58 39HR 11 1IT 97 19CY 14 0LV 36 7LT 34 10LU 12 1HU 70 28MT 22 2NL 46 13AT 113 14PL 112 2PT 77 4RO 58 13SI 97 6SK 33 4FI 50 6SE 57 17UK 88 19
50/6
25/2
36/7
112/2
58/13
67/1733/4
70/28
11/197/19
113/14
80/1
32/4
14/022/2
58/39
70/17
77/4
88/1946/13
50/16
12/1
39/20
43/9
57/17
97/6
13/4
34/10
17/52
Requesting Requested
Coll * 5BE 66 131BG 81 72CZ 84 67DK 52 52DE 59 244EE 27 36IE 17 52EL 36 68ES 87 217FR 97 190HR 12 51IT 116 208CY 14 79LV 43 50LT 44 51LU 13 53HU 98 87MT 24 33NL 59 197AT 127 109PL 114 114PT 81 57RO 71 119SI 103 41SK 37 90FI 56 42SE 74 60UK 107 208
56/42
27/36
43/50
114/114
71/119
84/6737/90
98/87
12/51116/208
127/109
81/72
36/68
14/7924/33
97/190
87/217
81/57
107/20859/197
66/131
13/53
59/244
52/52
74/60
103/41
44/51
* The cases registered by the College are not included in the map, only in the table
10 2014 Annual Report
Michèle Coninsx,Belgium Kamen Mihov,Bulgaria Lukáš Starý,CzechRepublic Jesper Hjortenberg,Denmark
Klaus Meyer-Cabri ,Germany Raivo Sepp,Estonia Frank Cassidy,Ireland Nikolaos Ornerakis,Greece
Francisco Jiménez-Villarejo,Spain Frédéric Baab,France Josip Čule,Croatia Francesco Lo Voi,Italy
Gunārs Bundzis,Latvia Laima Čekelienė,Lithuania
László Venczl,Hungary Han Moraal,Netherlands Ingrid Maschl-Clausen,Austria
Mariusz Skowroński,Poland António Cluny,Portugal Daniela Buruiană,Romania Malči Gabrijelčič,Slovenia
Ladislav Hamran,SlovakRepublic Harri Tiesmaa,Finland Leif Görts,Sweden Frances Kennah,UK
Katerina Loizou,Cyprus
Donatella Frendo Dimech,Malta
Olivier Lenert,Luxembourg
Eurojust College of National Members 2014
Eurojust at a glance / Eurojust’s tools
132014 Annual Report
What? Eurojust is the European Union’s Judicial Co-operationUnit.As abodyof theEuropeanUniones-tablished in2002,Eurojust’s goal is to stimulate andimprove the coordination of investigations and pros-ecutions and the cooperation between the competent authorities in the Member States in relation to serious cross-bordercrime,particularlywhenitisorganised.AttherequestofaMemberState,Eurojustmayalsoassistinvestigations and prosecutions concerning a particu-larMemberStateandanon-MemberStateifacoopera-tion agreement between Eurojust and the non-Member State has been concluded or an essential interest in providingsuchassistanceispresent.AttherequestofaMemberStateortheCommission,Eurojustmayalsoassist investigations and prosecutions concerning only that Member State and the Community.
Who? TheCollegeofEurojust (theCollege) is com-posedof28NationalMemberswhoareprosecutors,judges or police officers of equivalent competenceseconded by each Member State. National Members are based at Eurojust in The Hague.
Most National Members are assisted by a Deputy and/or an Assistant. Eurojust is supported by an Ad-ministrationandhoststheSecretariatsoftheEurope-anJudicialNetwork(theEJN),theNetworkofExpertson Joint Investigation Teams (the JITs Network) and the European network of contact points in respectof persons responsible for genocide, crimes againsthumanity and war crimes (the Genocide Network). In addition, LiaisonProsecutors fromNorway and theUSAarecurrentlypostedatEurojust.Thetotalnum-berofpeopleworkingatEurojust,includingCollegemembers,isapproximately350.
How? Eurojust’s key roles and powers include re-sponding to requests for assistance from the com-petentnationalauthoritiesoftheMemberStates.Inreturn, Eurojust can request Member States to un-dertake the investigation or prosecution of specificacts. National Members carry out Eurojust’s mandate tocoordinatetheworkofthenationalauthoritiesateverystageofcriminalinvestigationandprosecution.
Coordination meetings Coordination meetings are auniqueandeffective tool in judicialcooperation.They bring together judicial and law enforcementauthorities from Member States and third States,and allow for informed and targeted operationsin cross-border crime cases. During coordination
meetings, legal and practical difficulties resultingfrom differences among the 30 existing legal sys-temsintheEuropeanUnioncanberesolved.
Coordination centres Coordination centres play a highlyrelevantroleinoperations, fosteringreal-timesupport during joint action days, coordination andimmediatefollow-upofseizures,arrests,house/com-panysearches,freezingordersandwitnessinterviews.
Joint investigation teams Eurojust provides fund-ingandexpertiseforthesettingupandoperationalneedsofJITs.AJITisateamconsistingofprosecutors,judgesandlawenforcementauthorities.EstablishedforafixedperiodandaspecificpurposebywayofawrittenagreementbetweentheinvolvedStates,JITsallow criminal investigations to be carried out much moreeffectivelyinoneormoreoftheinvolvedStates.
External relations Eurojust’s work is based on ro-bustrelationshipswithanumberofpartners.Onthebasisofagreements,particularlyclosecooperationex-istswithnationalauthoritiesandEUinstitutionsandpartners: the European Commission; the European Judicial Network (the EJN); Europol; the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF); the European Agency fortheManagementofOperationalCooperationattheEx-ternalBordersoftheMemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion(Frontex);theEuropeanMonitoringCentreforDrugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); the European Police College (CEPOL); the European Judicial Training Network(theEJTN); theEuropeanUnionAgency forFundamental Rights (FRA) and international bodies: INTERPOL,Ibero-AmericanNetworkforInternationalLegal Cooperation (IberRed) and theUnitedNationsOfficeonDrugsandCrime(UNODC).Furthermore,Eu-rojust has signed cooperation agreements with Liech-tenstein,Switzerland,theformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia,theUSA,Norway,IcelandandMoldova.
1.2 Eurojust’s tools
Eurojust’s coordination meetings are a unique tool in thefieldofinternationalcooperationincriminalmat-ters.Byprovidinglegalandpracticalexpertise,alongwith material support (e.g. meeting rooms, high-qualityinterpretationservices,travelreimbursementforuptotwoparticipantsperState,accommodation),Eurojust brings together judicial and investigative authoritiesfromMemberStates,andalsofromthird
1.1 Eurojust at a glance
1.2.1 Coordination meetings
eurojust.europa.eu
Witness interviews
Seizures
House/companyseaches
Freezing orders
Arrests
ACTION DAY
EUROJUSTcoordination
centre
Gathering evidence correctly is important for successful future court proceedings.
3 Coordination centres
Coordination centres enable coordination and real-time transmission of information in serious cross-border crimes among national authorities during action days.
10 Eurojust
coordination centres
were held in 2014
2 Joint investigationteams (JITs)
Carrying out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved countries.
122 JITs
supported
Law enforcementauthorities
Judges Prosecutors
Fixed time period
Agreementbetween countries
Joint criminal investigations
JITs enable more efficient, affordable and speedier justice
266cases
14.5%of all casesregistered
Execution of European Arrest Warrants
Eurojust at workEurojust’scorebusinessistoassistthecompetentauthoritiesofEUMemberStateswhentheydealwith serious cross-border organised crime.
availability24/7
with 1 882prosecutors,
judges &police officers
197 coordination
meetings
1 Judicial coordination meetings
Bringing together judicial and law enforcement authorities from Member States and third States.
Preparatorymeeting
Coordinationmeeting
Collegemeeting
28 National Members
InvolvedNational Members
Involved National Members + judicial and/or
police authorities ofinvolved countries
152014 Annual Report
States, taking a stepbeyond theonce revolutionaryprinciple of direct communication between judicialauthoritiesandfosteringmutualtrust.
Inan informalyetprofessionalworkenvironment,investigators, prosecutors and judges can directlyexchange information about linked investigations,
and,freeoflinguisticbarriers,candiscussandagreeon the spot on strategies to better coordinate inves-tigations(e.g.byplanningacommonactionday,pos-siblysupportedbyacoordinationcentre,bysettingup a JIT, by identifying conflicts of jurisdiction andagreeingonhowtopreventorresolvetheseconflictsbyeventualtransferofproceedings,orbysimplyex-ploring ways to prevent or remove problems in the executionofMLArequestsormutualrecognitionin-struments). In addition to operational issues, legalchallenges are addressed or effectively tackled (e.g.judicialuseof informationexchangedby thepolice,banksecrecyrules,legalcounsellingatinterviews).
Indoingso,thenationalauthoritiesareassistedbyhighlyqualifiedpractitioners,mostof themprose-cutorsandjudgesthemselves,whocanprovidetheexpertise gathered while working at Eurojust and support their national authorities with a compre-hensive analysis of different investigations, whichdrawsthebiggerpictureinwhicheachpieceofthepuzzle fits, showing a previously unsuspected oroverlookeddimensionoftheirwork.
Eurojust,awareof theuniquenessandeffectivenessof this tool, has constantly worked on promotingand improving it. In2014, thenumberof coordina-tionmeetingsheldatEurojustremainedstableafterthesignificantincreaseexperiencedin2011.TheUK,France and Germany were the most requesting Mem-berStates,whiletheNetherlands, theUKandSpainweretheMemberStatesmostoftenrequestedtopar-ticipate. Of the 41 coordination meetings involvingthirdStates,mostmeetingsconcernedtheUSA,Swit-zerlandandNorway.Europolparticipatedin98suchmeetings,OLAFinthreeandINTERPOLinone.
The fact that a slightly smaller number of coordi-nation meetings were held while more cases were registeredatEurojustreflectsEurojust’scontinuingeffort topromote and improve this tool, by select-ing the cases for which a coordinationmeeting issuited. The best decision about how to handle a case is sometimes not to organise a coordination meet-ing, because Eurojust’s objectives can be achievedthrough less costly options.
Atthesametime,whenacoordinationmeetingisnec-essary,organisationalandcost toolsareoftenused,such as: (a) co-chaired meetings in which two Nation-al Desks hold a joint meeting and deal with two linked cases; (b) meetings held by a single National Desk to tackle several related cases simultaneously; and (c) videoconferencing, which in 2014 enabled partici-pants to attend nine coordination meetings.
Case illustration
AnOCGwas suspectedof skimming activi-ties(stealingpaymentcarddatafromPointsof Sale (POS) and cashmachines in differ-ent European States) and fraudulent mon-ey withdrawals using blank cards (made,amongotherplaces, inCambodia, Panama,Ecuador and Colombia). The Romanian Desk at Eurojust organised a coordination meet-ingtoverifyiftheOCGwasactiveinFrance,Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway andSpainand if investigationswereongoing inthoseStates.DuetothefactthattwoRoma-niancaseswerelinked,theinvestigationwasunder some time pressure; to have a suc-cessful prosecution, close cooperation andcoordinationofactionswiththeotherStatesinvolved was important.
During the coordination meeting, informa-tion regarding cases in the Member States was exchanged and additional steps were discussedtoenabletheexecutionofMLAre-quests sent by Romania. With regard to the MLArequeststotheUKtolocatethesuspectsandtoconducttelephoneinterceptions,theUK authorities clarified that an additionalMLA request was needed. The German au-thorities explained that a prosecutor needed to open a case in Germany to ensure that the information exchanged at law enforcementlevel could be used in the Romanian court proceedings.That informationwasofvalueto the Romanian proceedings.
Atthecoordinationmeeting,Eurojusthigh-lighted themovements of the OCG aroundEurope and those States that had only re-centlybeentargetedbythegroup,underlin-ingtheneedforfurtherinvestigation.
The case was ongoing in 2014.
Organising Involved
BE 12 31
BG 1 11
CZ 7 16
DK 4 8
DE 18 35
EE 2 6
IE 0 5
EL 0 3
ES 15 39
FR 20 33
HR 0 3
IT 17 16
CY 1 3
LV 8 10
LT 7 11
LU 0 5
HU 1 12
MT 1 2
NL 14 52
AT 11 10
PL 3 15
PT 1 3
RO 6 21
SI 4 11
SK 2 8
FI 7 14
SE 12 10
UK 22 40
NO 1 9
7/14
2/6
8/10
3/15
6/21
7/162/8
1/12
0/317/16
11/10
1/11
0/3
1/31/2
20/33
15/391/3
22/4014/52
12/31
0/5
18/35
4/8
12/10
4/11
0/5
7/11
1/9
Coordination meetings
Third States, cooperation partners and international organisations involved in coordination meetings
Serbia, 1Interpol, 1
Andorra, 1Chile, 1
Colombia, 1Dominican Republic, 1
Georgia, 1Liechtenstein, 1
Bosnia & Herzegovina, 2
Turkey, 2
Philippines, 2
New Zealand, 2
Indonesia, 2
fYROM, 2
Other, 20
Europol, 98
OLAF,3
USA,14
Switzerland,10Norway,9
Ukraine,6
Australia,4
Canada,4Israel,3
Malaysia,3
16 Eurojust at a glance / Eurojust’s tools
172014 Annual Report
1.2.2 Coordination centres
Coordination centres provide a unique opportunity for the real-time exchange of information and cen-tralised coordinationof the simultaneous executionof, inter alia, arrest warrants and searches and sei-zuresindifferentStates.Coordinationcentresexpe-
Case illustration
TheBelgianauthoritiesinvestigatedanOCGoperatinginBelgium,Bulgaria,theNetherlandsandRomania.TheOCGallegedlycommittedfraudona largescale, includinginfringementofsocialsecurity law.Since2007,approximately100RomanianworkershadbeenillegallyemployedbyDutchandRomaniannationalsintheBelgianconstructionsector,withacarouselofBelgianandBulgariancompaniesinvolved.SeveralBel-gianconstructioncompaniesweresuspectedofusingtheseRomanianworkersinviolationoftheprohibi-tiononthetemporaryplacementofemployees.TheRomanianworkerswerefictitiouslysecondedbyDutchcompaniesviaBulgarianenterprisesorfalselyregisteredasself-employedinBelgiancompanies.
AttherequestofBelgium,Eurojusthostedtwocoordinationmeetings.DuringthefirstmeetinginMay2013, theBelgianauthorities elaboratedon theongoingBelgian investigation.While several Stateswereinvolvedinthecase,themeetingclarifiedthatinvestigationswereonlyongoinginBelgiumand,accordingly,prosecutionswerenotlikelytotakeplaceinotherStates.Inaddition,theexecutionofaBelgianMLArequesttotheNetherlandswassubjecttomodification.TheDutchauthoritiesclarifiedtheadditionalinformationneeded.TheBulgarianauthoritiesexplainedthatarequestforinformationregardingBulgarianbankaccountsneededtheconsentoftheSupremeCourtpriortoitsexecution,dueto the secrecy rules applicable in Bulgaria.
DuringthesecondmeetinginFebruary2014,anassessmentwasmadeofthepracticalandlegalchal-lenges involved in conducting simultaneous interviews and searches in all involved Member States on oneday.OneofthepossiblelegalobstaclesconcernedtheinterviewsintheNetherlandsthatweretobecarriedoutinthepresenceofaBelgianinvestigatingofficer.Thissettinggaverisetoconcernsregard-ingtheconformityofthemeasurewiththecaselawasestablishedbytheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsintheSalduzcase,andaslaiddownintheBelgianSalduzAct.Accordingtothislegislation,asuspecthastherighttolegalcounselatthefirst(police)interview.
Acknowledgingthepossibleconsequencesofthislegislationontheuseofthetestimoniesasevidence,the participants agreed that an ex officiorequestforthepresenceofa lawyerduringtheinterviewswouldbemadebytheBelgianinvestigatingjudge.Havingassessedthepossibleoutcomeofsimultane-ousactions,theparticipantsalsodecidedtoorganiseacommonactiondayinApril2014andtosetupa coordination centre at Eurojust.
Theobjectiveofthejointoperationwastopreventcollusionandthedestructionofevidence,andtostemfurtherlossestotheBelgianandDutchauthorities.Theresultsofthesimultaneousactionswere19housesearches,30searchesatconstructionsitesand42personsinterviewed.
dite the timely transmission of additional informa-tion urgently needed to execute such measures and newly issued MLA requests.
Ten coordination centres were set up at Eurojust to supportjointactiondays,andwereorganisedbyBel-gium (1), France (1), Finland (1), theCzechRepublic(1),Spain(2), Italy(2)andtheNetherlands(2),withtheparticipationofotherMemberStates,includingBel-gium(4)andtheUK(4).Europol(9)andtheUSA(2)alsoparticipa-tedinseveralofthesejointactiondays.Thecrimetypestargetedincludedswindlingandfraud,cybercrime,illegalimmigrationanddrugtrafficking.
The College adopted Guidelines on confidentiality and disclosure within the framework of Eurojust co-ordination meetings on 8 April to assist in how to best deal with sensitive legal issues arising during coordination meetings.
Coordination centres
Organising
Participating
USA, 2
Europol, 9
Third States, cooperation partners and international organisations involved in coordination centres
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU NL AT PL RO SK FI SE UKHR
2
1
6
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
2 2 2 22
2
22
4
4
3 3
3
3
Total: 10 coordination centres
18 Eurojust at a glance / Eurojust’s tools
The10coordinationcentresheld in2014,comparedtothesevenin2013,demonstratethegrowingpopu-larityofthisoperationaltoolamongdomesticauthori-tiesandNationalDesksatEurojustinthefightagainstcross-border crime in Europe.
These joint operations, involving the national pros-ecutorial authorities, are further confirmation of theaddedvalueofEurojust.
Inadditiontotheirinherentoperationaladdedvalue,co-ordinationcentresmayalsoplayasignificantroleinthedevelopmentofthejudicialdimensionofthecase,par-ticularlyinfacilitatingtheanticipationandtimelyreso-lutionofcomplexlegalissuesarisingpriortoandduringcommonactiondays,suchasthosestemmingfromthedifferentdomesticlegalframeworksofconfiscationandassetseizuresortheproceduralrequirementssetoutatnationallevelfortheexecutionofEAWs.
Case illustration
AnetworkofseveralOCGswasdiscoveredtobeoperatingasophisticatedcarousel fraudschemeinvolvingalcoholicdrinksindifferentMemberStates.AlcoholicdrinksweretradedaroundEuropethroughmirrororphantommovementssanctionedbyfalsifiedelectronicAccompanyingDocuments(e-ADs)toconcealtheirtruefinaldestination,inmostcasestheUK,wherethebeverageswereputonthemarket.Theamountofexcisetaxunlawfullyevadedisestimatedtobetensofmillionsofeuros.
TheItaliancase(OperationCocktail)wasregisteredinApril2013,andinvolvedBelgium,France,Ger-many,theNetherlands,Romania,SpainandtheUK.
192014 Annual Report
1.2.3 Information exchange and the Eurojust CMS
Development and adoption of polices related to the CMS
TheCMS is a tailor-madedatabase for storingandprocessingcase-relateddata.Itfacilitatesthecoor-dinationworkofEurojust,allowstheaccessingandcross-referencing of data by the involved parties
Thecaseevolvedintwophases.Duringthefirstphasein2013,Eurojustcollectedandanalysedopera-tionalinformationfromnationalauthorities(e.g.customsandlawenforcementauthorities)todetectthe modus operandi andcriminalpatternsoftheOCGsandtopresentpossibleoptionsforthejudicialresponse.Inaddition,EurojustcoordinatedtheissuanceandexecutionofMLArequestsandorganisedtwo coordination meetings.
Throughoutthesecondphasein2014,EurojustcoordinatedthejudicialresponseprovidedatnationallevelagainsttheOCGsbyorganisingtwocoordinationcentresthatsupportedtwodifferentjointactiondays,withasix-monthinterval.
ThefirstcoordinationcentreinMay2014followedaseriesofarrests,searchesandseizuresinFranceandGermany,andfocusedontargetsinBelgianinvestigations,resultinginfivearrests,includingtheleadersoftheBelgianOCG.OtherresultswerethefreezingofthreebankaccountsinLatvia,23search-es,andtheseizureofcash,computers,laptops,mobiletelephones,vehiclesandotherhigh-valueitems.ThesecondcoordinationcentreinNovember2014focusedontargetsinItaliancriminalproceedingsandresultedinthearrestof20membersoftheOCGs,includingtheleaders.Thearrestsweremadeonthebasisof14nationalarrestwarrantsexecutedinItalyandsixEAWsexecutedinGermany,Romaniaand theUK. In addition, 30premiseswere searchedand financial and real estate assets (includingseveralbankaccounts),weapons,computers,vehicles,mobiletelephonesanddocumentswereseized.
Theaddedvalueofthiscoordinationcentrebecomesevident ifone looksat thecircumstancessur-roundingtheexecutionofanEAWissuedagainstoneofthemaintargetsinthiscase,anItaliannationalresidentintheUK.AllarrangementsweremadeforhisarrestonUKterritoryduringthejointactionday.However,asthejointoperationsstarted,thecoordinationcentrelearnedthathehadtravelledtoSpainthepreviousnight.Thecoordinationcentrepromptly informedtheSpanishDeskatEurojust,which in turn immediately engaged the relevant Spanish authorities in an attempt to locate the target. TheSpanishauthoritiesactivelysearchedforhim,butthetargetwasnotfound.Intheearlyhoursofthenextday,theUKauthoritieslearnedthatthetargetappearedonthepassengerlistofaUK-boundflightfromSpain,dueto landatGatwickAirport.This informationwasrelayed, throughthecoordinationcentre,totheItalianandSpanishauthorities.Thecyclewasnowcomplete,andthetargetwasarrestedatGatwickAirportuponarrivingfromSpain.
ThechallengesfacedinthiscasewerethecomplexityofthefraudulentschemeappliedbytheOCGs,theirabilitytomovelargequantitiesofalcoholicdrinksacrossMemberStatesalmostundetectedbytheinvestigatinglawenforcementauthoritiesandthedifferentlegalsystemsinvolved.Duringtheco-ordinationcentres,Eurojustsupportedthetimelyandjointexecutionofactionssuchasarrestsandsei-zures,whilerespectingeachMemberState’sownproceduraltimelineandrequirements.Atbothcoor-dinationcentres,Europoldeployedamobileofficeforadditionalon-the-spotsupporttotheoperation.
and facilitatesmonitoring of the lawfulness of theprocessingof personal data. In2014, twoupgradedversionsoftheCMSweredevelopedtoimproveitsop-erational capabilities and usability. In the first half of2014,CMS3.5wasreleasedtoprovideawiderrangeoffunctionsfordatainputandprocessing,andtoincreasecompliance with data protection rules. During the sec-ond half of 2014, a second upgrade, version 4.0,wasdevelopedandtested.CMS4.0,whichisexpectedtobereleasedinearly2015,offersthepossibilityforflexible
Number of Article 13 cases
Article 13 No. cases
Article 13(5) JITs 59
Article 13(6)(a) Serious crimes 156
Article 13(6)(b)Involvement of criminal organisation
44
Article 13(6)(c) Repercussions at EU level 20
Article 13(7)(a) Conflicts of jurisdiction 27
Article 13(7)(b) Controlled deliveries 21
Article 13(7)(c)Repeated difficulties in execution of requests
8
Article 13(6)(a),47%
Article 13(5),18%
Article 13(6)(b),13%
Article 13(6)(c), 6%
Article 13(7)(a), 8%
Article 13(7)(b), 6%
Article 13(7)(c), 2%
20 Eurojust at a glance / Eurojust’s tools
accesstotheCMSfordifferentusergroupsandcreatesthepreconditionforENCSusers’accesstotheCMS.Itupdatestheautomaticimportingofthe‘smart’Article13formandimprovestheresponsetimeofthesystem.ThenextCMSversion,CMS4.1,whichwillalsobeim-plementedin2015,includesanimportantupdatetoal-lowtherecordingofdecisionsonthebasisofArticle19oftheRules of procedure on the processing and protec-tion of personal data at Eurojust.
Newpolicies,relatedtotheuseandmaintenanceofthe CMS,were agreed by the College in 2014. The‘approachtodataentry’,adoptedinJuly,introducedcommonstandardsfordatainputanduniformwork-ing methods to be applied by the National Desks. The ‘holisticapproach’,adoptedinOctober,expandedtheconceptoftheCMStoincludecomponentsthathavebeen added to the system during different stagesof its development, and provides the basis for themaintenanceandchangemanagementofthemulti-plesystemcomponentsinaunifiedfashion.
‘Smart’ Article 13 form
Article13oftheEurojustDecisionrequiresthenationalauthorities to provide Eurojust with any information
necessaryfortheperformanceofEurojust’soperationaltasks.The‘smart’Article13formisanelectronictem-plate developed by Eurojust to enable the structured transmission of such information from national au-thoritiestoEurojust.In2014,theCollegereviewedtheapplied process and accumulated experience and dis-cussedapossiblewayforwardwiththeimplementationbyEurojustofArticle13oftheEurojustDecision.
The need to make the Article 13 form more user-friendlyfornationalauthoritieswashighlighteddur-ingtheSixthRoundofMutualEvaluations,andrepre-sentedoneoftheoutcomesofthe2ndmeetingoftheNational Correspondents for Eurojust in November2014.Threeupdatedversionsof the formwere is-sued in 2014. The updates allowed Croatia to initiate andimporttheformintotheCMSandintroducedanumberofadjustments inthetextoftheformthatincreased its clarity. Eurojust launched a procedure tosimplifytheformattheendof2014.
Connections between the ENCS and the CMS
WorkcontinuedontheimplementationoftheSecureNetworkConnectionproject in2014.Thisproject fo-cuses on setting up secure network connectivity be-
JITs supported by Eurojust and the main crime types
One JIT can deal with more than one crime type.
* Information provided by JITs Network Secretariat
Active from previous years, 77 Signed in 2014, 45
Participation in criminal
organisation, 14
Fraud, 13
Drug trafficking, 11
Money laundering, 7
THB, 7
JITs supported: 122 JITs funded: 67 *
212014 Annual Report
tweenEurojustandeachofthe28MemberStates.TheconnectionswithBelgium,Hungary,Poland,Slovenia,Finland and Swedenbecameoperational, bringing to11thetotalnumberofMemberStateswithanestab-lished and operational secure connection (connections withBulgaria, theCzechRepublic,Latvia, theNether-lands and Romania were already in place). The secure connections allow for the implementation of the re-quirementsarisingfromArticle12(providingtheENCSin each Member State with access to the CMS) and Arti-cle13(exchangeof‘smart’PDFtemplatesbye-mail)oftheEurojustDecisionandimprovethesafeexchangeofinformationbetweenEurojustandtheMemberStates.
Fiches Suédoises
The Fiches Suédoises provide an overview of the structure and functioning of theENCS by Member State. This tool is regu-larly updated by Eurojust to support ENCS implementationandtheexchangeofexpe-rience andbest practice. SinceNovember,the Fiches include a section providing a collection of available national guidelinesrelatingtotheimplementationofArticle13oftheEurojustDecisionandtothedistribu-tionofcasesbetweenEurojustandtheEJN.1.2.4 Eurojust and JITs
JITsareaneffectiveoperational tool for lawenforce-mentandjudicialauthoritiesinthefacilitationoflegalassistance in cross-border investigations. The ability ofJITmemberstoshareinformationdirectlywithoutthe need for formal requests and to request investi-gativemeasures among themselves directly, and theinvolvementofEurojustbywayofdirectsupportandassistance, have continued to prove highly valuable.In2014,122 JITswere supportedbyNationalMem-bers,45ofwhichwerenewlyformedin2014.National
Members participated either in their capacity as com-petentnationalauthoritiesoronbehalfofEurojustinaccordancewithArticle9foftheEurojustDecision.
Pursuant to Article 13(5) of the Eurojust Decision,Member States shall ensure that National Members are informedof thesettingupof JITsandof there-sults of the work of such teams. Eurojust received
22 Eurojust at a glance / Eurojust’s tools
59 notifications. Eurojust’s assistance included: (i)draftingof JITagreementsorextensions toexistingagreements;(ii)advisingontheEUandinternationallegalframeworksinsettingupaJIT;(iii)providingin-formationondifferentproceduralsystems;(iv)iden-tifyingsuitablecasesfor JITs;(v)organisingcoordi-nation meetings to support JITs; and (vi) providing assistance concerning coordinated action.
Coordination meetings organised to facilitate theworkof JITs contributed to the resolutionof recur-ringobstacles,suchas:i)differencesinlegalsystemswithregardtorulesonthegatheringofevidence;ii)admissibilityofevidence; iii)disclosureof informa-tion;andiv)timelimitsfordataretention.
JITshavealsodevelopedintoaswiftandflexibletoolforcooperation with third States. Eurojust provided sup-porttotherunningofsevenJITsinvolvingthirdStates,three ofwhichwere newly created in 2014. Eurojusthelped to overcome legal and practical obstacles that are particularly linked to participation by third States.
Recognising the need to reflect on the challenges togreatercooperationwiththirdStates,inJune2014,Eu-rojusthostedthe10thannualmeetingofthenetworkofJITnationalexpertsorganisedbytheJITsNetworkSecretariat.Themeeting,entitledJITs ‘Beyond the EU’: Towards a Greater Use of JITs with Non-EU States,fo-cused, inter alia,onthelegalandpracticalaspectsofthesettingupandrunningofJITswiththirdStates,onspecificissuesrelatedtotheexchangeofinformation
Case illustration
In relation to the crash of FlightMH17 inUkraine on 17 July 2014, a JIT betweenthe Netherlands, Belgium, Australia andUkraine,withtheparticipationofMalaysia,wassetupwiththeassistanceofEurojust.The JIT members decided at a later stage that Malaysia would also become a member of the JIT. Eurojusthostedthreecoordina-tion meetings and assisted in i) determining thelegalbasisfortheJITwithrespecttothethirdStatesinvolved;ii)clarifyingtheroleofthird States in their capacity as participants ormembersof the JIT; iii) drafting the JITagreement;andiv)definingtheeligibilityofthirdStatesthataremembersoforpartici-pantsinaJITforfundingviaEurojust.
andevidencewiththirdStates,andonthecontributionby the JITs Network Secretariat to the promotion and developmentofJITswithneighbouringcountries.
Experts agreed on the importance of the assistanceprovided by Eurojust when considering the involve-ment of third States in JITs by identifying suitablecases, initiating and facilitating contact, and provid-inganalysisthatcaninfluencethedecisiontosetupaJIT.Duetothesignificantdifferencesinlegalsystems,theEUmodelagreementonJITsisconsideredbytheexperts to be not completely appropriate in relation tothirdStates,andmayneedsomeadjustments.Theexperts recommended that all Member States imple-ment the Second additional protocol to the 1959 Con-vention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. The expertsfurtheremphasizedtheimportanceofthese-cureexchangeofinformationwiththirdStatesintheframeworkofJITs.Inthatrespect,thelendingoftech-nicalequipmentbyEurojustallowsasecurechannelofcommunication between JIT parties to be established.
The issue of the use of information and evidenceneedstobecarefullyaddressed,especiallyinrelationto third States that enforce the death penalty. Fur-thermore,theJITsNetworkSecretariatshouldfacili-tatetheestablishmentofcontactwithpartners(e.g.Europol,CEPOL,theEJTNandtheSecretariatofthePoliceCooperationConventionforSoutheastEurope)forcarryingouttrainingandraisingawarenessaboutJITsoutsideoftheEuropeanUnion.
Practitioners have evaluated the results achieved,legal issuesandpracticaldifficultiesencounteredatdifferentstagesofaJIT.AnumberofJITevaluationshave been submitted to the JITs Network Secretariat (see Section 6.2).
Eurojust’s financial support to JIT operations
Eurojust continued providing financial and logisti-calassistancefromwithinitsregularbudgettoJIToperationsbysupporting67JITs,48ofwhichwerenewlyfunded.
SeveralrefinementstotheJITfundingprocedurewereintroduced in 2014, including financial assistance be-ing made available to third States involved in JITs with MemberStates. In thecourseof theyear,Eurojustre-ceived12applications fromJITs inwhich thirdStateswereinvolved.Inaddition,fundingwasgrantedtoJITsset up under legal instruments other than the 2000 Eu-ropean Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between theMember States of the EuropeanUnionandFrameworkDecision2002/465/JHAonJITs.
Eurojust JIT funding (December 2009 - August 2014)
BE BG CZ DK DE EE SIES FR MTCY LV LT LU HU NL AT PL RO SK FI SE UKPT
30
1 1 1
Number of JITs financially supported per Member State
14
19
11
26
23
16
37
1012
6
2
22
6 5
2
9
5
24
11
45
232014 Annual Report
Case illustration
A JITwasestablished todismantle severalOCGsoriginating fromthe formerYugoslavRepublicofMacedoniathatwereengagedintraffickinglargequantitiesmainlyofheroinandcocainetotheNeth-erlands,AustriaandGermany.AsaresultoftheJIT,theactivitiesoftheOCGweresignificantlyreduced.ThecooperationinthiscaseresultedinnumerousarrestsandconvictionsinAustria,Germany,theNetherlandsandtheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia,aswellastheconfiscationofsubstantialamountsofheroin,cocaine,cuttingagents,marijuanaandcash.
Eurojust played an essential role in this case by coordinating investigations in the Member States and promotingtheinitiationofinvestigationsandprosecutionsintheformerYugoslavRepublicofMac-edoniaandtheNetherlands.AtotalofeightcoordinationmeetingsoveraperiodoffouryearswereorganisedbyEurojust,whichfacilitateddiscussionsontheongoinginvestigations,thesuitabilityofsettingupaJITandtheactivitiesperformed.ThisformofcooperationwasconsideredprofitableasitremovedtherequirementofMLArequestsbetweentheparticipatingMemberStatesandthethirdState.ItalsoenabledtheauthoritiesoftheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedoniatoinformthepar-ticipatingMemberStatesoftheresultsoftelephoneinterceptionswhiletheyweretakingplace.SuchpossibilitydidnotexistwhenaregularrequestforMLAwasmade.EurojustassistedindraftingtheJITagreementandprovidedsupportconcerningtheclarificationoflegalrequirementsandadviceonspe-cialprovisionscontainedintheJITagreement.Incollaborationwiththeinvolvedauthorities,EurojustpreparedanoverviewofthesuspectsandthestateofproceedingsintheinvolvedMemberStates.Inaddition,EurojustgrantedfinancialsupporttotheJIT.
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
timeline
14 February The HagueVisit of MEP Axel Voss, Rapporteur for the Eurojust Regulation
26 February The Hague 35th regular meeting of European Judicial Network (EJN) Contact Points
24 March The HagueEurojust participates in Nuclear Security Summit
21-22 May The Hague16th meeting of the European Network for investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
15-16 MayMarketing seminar in Poland
26-27 MayMarketing seminar in Hungary
11-12 JuneMarketing seminar in France
25-26 June The Hague 10th annual meeting of JIT national experts
10-11 June The HagueStrategic seminar on the European Arrest Warrant
and Meeting of the Consultative Forum
4-5 June The HagueStrategic meeting on terrorism
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
10 July The HagueCooperation Agreement betweenEurojust and the Republic of Moldova
3 November VallettaMoU between Eurojust and the European
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
11-12 December The Hague Strategic seminar on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime, and
Meeting of the Consultative Forum
15 July The HagueMoU between Eurojust and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
19-20 November The HagueMeeting,Cybercrime:risingtothe
challengesofthe21stcentury 21 November BrusselsMedia briefing and presentation of Eurojust’s strategic project on Environmental Crime
21 September7th Hague International Day
29-30 September The HagueStrategic meeting on drug trafficking
16-17 October The Hague Meeting of Eurojust contact points and
Liaison Prosecutors: Complementarity,synergies and cooperation
Eurojust casework
Priority crimeCases Coordination meetings JITs
2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014
Fraud 449 560 60 60 21 32
Corruption 52 55 16 9 3 4
PIF crimes 31 70 8 7 1 2
MOCGs 257 128 66 13 8 13
Priority crime areas 65%
Non-priority crime areas 35%
Fraud
Drug trafficking
(Mobile) Organised crime groups
PIF crimes
TerrorismIllegal immigration
CybercrimeCorruption THB
Eurojust casework in priority crime areas
272014 Annual Report
Eurojust’s operational priorities for the period 2014-2017substantiallymirrortheEU’sprioritiesinthefightagainstseriousandorganisedcrime,asprovidedbytheCounciloftheEU,withtheexceptionofillegaltraffick-ing in firearms.However, Eurojust’s priorities includecertain crime types that were not set as priorities in the EUpolicycycle,namelycorruption,criminaloffencesaf-fectingtheEU’sfinancialinterestsandterrorism.
EMPACT
EachoftheprioritiesagreedbytheCouncilfortheEUfortheperiod2014-2017wastranslatedintoMulti-annualStrategicPlans(MASP)definingthestrategicgoalstoachieve.Inordertoachievethesestrategicgoals,nineEMPACTprojects(oneforeachoftheCouncil’spriorities)were launched to coordinate actions by Member States andEUorganisationsagainsttheidentifiedthreats.Onayearlybasis,EMPACTprojectssetouttheirOperationalAction Plans (OAPs) to achieve these strategic goals.
Eurojust actively participated in the preparation and draftingoftheOAPsfortheyear2015.Inthisregard,Eu-rojust representatives attended 33 meetings held within allnineEMPACTcrimepriorityareas,includingtheNa-tionalEMPACTCoordinatorsmeetingofNovember(see Councildoc.15930/14),asfollows:facilitationofillegalimmigration; THB; counterfeit goods; excise andMTICfraud;syntheticdrugs;cocaineandheroin;illicitfirearmstrafficking;organisedpropertycrime;andcybercrime.
Eurojust’sparticipationinthedevelopmentofthe2015OAPs was guided by the common position adopted by the Collegein2013,whichhadforeseenEurojust’sinvolve-ment inthe followingsixareas:cooperationwiththirdStates;financialinvestigations(includingassetrecovery);awareness raising; training; legal/practical obstacles; and increase in coordinated investigations and prosecutions.
2.1 Eurojust casework in priority crime areas
Tackling the proceeds of crime
Eurojust’sefforts insupportingpractitioners indeal-ingwithseriouscrimesincludedidentifying,freezing,confiscating and the sharing and return of the pro-ceedsofcrime.
Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22July 2003 on the execution in the European Unionof orders freezing property or evidence, and Coun-cilFrameworkDecision2006/783/JHAof6October2006ontheapplicationoftheprincipleofmutualrec-ognitiontoconfiscationorders,areimportanttoolsinensuring that crime does not pay. Each Decision pro-videspractitionerswithastandardcertificate.
TofacilitatetheapplicationofandcompliancewiththeDecisions,Eurojusthasmadeeditable formatsof thecertificatesavailabletopractitionersonourwebsite.
Overall statistics
Priority crimeCases Coordination meetings JITs
2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014
Drugtrafficking 239 283 56 52 26 31
Cybercrime 29 42 10 15 9 6
Illegal immigration 25 32 5 10 7 9
Terrorism 17 14 3 4 1 2
THB 84 71 24 12 15 18
28 Eurojust casework
2.1.1 Fraud
The significant growth in fraud cases continued, fol-lowing a trend that started in 2012.With a total of560cases, fraudcases representalmostone-thirdofEurojustcasesregisteredin2014.Comparedto2013,the number of coordination meetings remained un-changed(60),whilethatofJITsgreatlyincreased(32).
Fraudcasesweremainlyhandledasstand-aloneof-fences (348) or through the generic ‘other types offraud’category.Ofitssubcategories,themostreport-edareswindling(157)andVATfraud(141).Fraudistypicallyassociatedwithmoneylaundering(83),par-ticipationinacriminalorganisation(48)andforgeryofadministrativedocuments(41).
Eurojust’s casework shows that the most requesting MemberStateswereHungary,AustriaandSlovenia.TheUK,GermanyandSpainwerethemostrequestedMember States.
In addition to its operational casework, EurojuststeppedupitscontributiontoeffortsundertakenatEU level to counter all forms of fraud. Against thisbackground, Eurojust hostedmeetingswith delega-tionsfromtheEuropeanCourtofAuditorstoassesstheeffectivenessoftheEUinthefightagainstcross-borderVATfraud,andwithrepresentativesoftheEu-ropeanCommission’sDirectorateGeneralforHealthand Consumer Protection, DG SANTE (formerly DGSANCO), todiscussmethodsof strengthening coop-eration in theareaof fraudrelated to food,alcohol,pesticidesandthelabellingofproducts.
EurojustworkedwithArcadia International, amem-berof theFoodChainEvaluationConsortium,whichDG SANTE commissioned earlier in 2014 to conduct a study on illegal trade and counterfeiting of pes-ticides and an ad hoc studyon the impactonofficialcontrolsandenforcementactionsofthecurrentlegal
frameworkapplicabletofoodfraud.ThesestudiesareintendedtoassistintheongoingworkoftheCommis-siontostepupthefightagainstfraudulentpracticesinthefoodchainand,inparticular,toassesswhethertherelevantEUpolicyandlegalframeworkaresufficientandeffectiveoriffurtheractionisneeded.
Case illustration
Companies suspected of involvement incomplexVATfraudwereunderinvestigationforseveralyearsbytheGermanauthorities.The German Public Prosecution Offices inCologne and Augsburg sent MLA requests to the Dutch authorities to carry out searches. InaccordancewiththeDutchCodeofCrimi-nalProcedure,acourtdecisionisrequiredtoallowdocumentsseized in theNetherlandsto be handed over to a foreign authority,and offers the possibility for complaints tobe lodged by interested parties. Due to this procedure, certain targets, some of whichsharedlegalcounsel,lodgedacomplaintandwonanappealagainsttheseizures.
Asaresult,tospeeduptheexecutionofmul-tiple MLA requests against the same per-sonsand/orcorporations,theassistanceofEurojust was requested and a bilateral case was registered.
A coordination meeting held at Eurojust in February 2014 focused on the possibilitiestoexpeditetheexecutionprocess,whilerec-ognising the restrictions on the procedures involved. The German and Dutch authorities
292014 Annual Report
presentatthemeetingagreedonmethodsofenhancing cooperation by:
` SendingseparateMLArequestsforasum-mons to surrender documents and search-ingthewarehousesofanumberofcorpo-rationsinsteadofprocessingtworequestscontained in the same document;
` Inquiring with the national authorities whetherdocumentsofvaluetotheinves-tigationinAugsburghadbeenseizedbythe Dutch authorities during earlier in-vestigations into these corporations and sendinganMLArequestforthepurposeoftransferringthesedocuments;and
` Withdrawing the MLA requests fromCologne and executing the two requests sent by the PPO in Augsburg only. At a laterstage,thePPOinColognecouldre-quest the information collected for thepurposeoftheAugsburgcases.
The common interest and constructive dia-logueoftheparticipatingnationalauthoritieswerekeyfactorsinensuringjudicialcoopera-tion between the two Member States while respecting existing procedural requirements.
2.1.2 Corruption
Thenumberofcorruptioncases(55)andJITswithinthis crime type (4) increased slightly over the pre-vious year, and the number of related coordinationmeetingssignificantlydecreased(9).
Corruption is often addressed as a stand-alone of-fence(26),orinconjunctionwithmoneylaundering(14)orswindlingandfraud(10).
Withregardtocorruptioncases,themostrequestingMemberStateswereSpain,Greece,Croatia,Italy,andLatvia. The most requested Member States were the UK,Austria,GermanyandtheNetherlands.
To reinforce its involvement in the fieldof counter-ingcorruption,therelevantproceduresareongoingfor Eurojust’s association with the following FocalPoints: Sports Corruption and Asset Recovery.
Furthermore, Eurojust attended and delivered apresentation at a conference organised by the EUCrossBorderBriberyTaskforce.TheTaskforcecon-sistsoflawenforcementpractitionersandprosecu-torsfromtheMemberStatesandisledbytheOver-seasAnti-CorruptionUnitwithintheCityofLondonPolice.It isdesignedtobringtogetherEUagencieswith similar remits to share information on con-temporary practice and case studies, identify mu-tualcasesandopportunitiesforjointinvestigations,develop networks and build working relationships withanti-briberyprofessionalstoimproveEU-wideknowledgeofdifferentagencies’legal,jurisdictionaland operational parameters.
2.1.3 Criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (PIF offences)
Introducedasacrimepriorityin2014,PIFoffencesincreased within Eurojust’s casework compared to thepreviousreportingperiod.Thenumberofcasesdealing with PIF offences registered in 2014 (70)more than doubled over 2013 (31). Seven coordina-tionmeetingsandtwoJITsdealtwithPIFoffences.
Within the framework of Eurojust’s casework, PIFoffences include the crimes of cigarette smugglingandcounterfeitinginadditiontoallcriminaloffencesstrictlyaffectingtheEU’sfinancialinterests.Inmostcases,PIFcrimesaredealtwithasastand-alonesetofoffences,orinconjunctionwithswindlingandfraud(35) or money laundering (8).
ThemostrequestingMemberStateswereHungary,Bul-garia,MaltaandPoland.Germany,theUKandtheSlovakRepublic were the most requested Member States.
TheprotectionofthefinancialinterestsoftheEuro-peanUnionwasalsothesubjectofaquestionnairecirculatedtoallMemberStates.Thecompilationofthe answers was presented to the College in Decem-ber 2014. The Member States’ responses highlight-edthefollowingfactorsasthemainlegal/practicalchallengesincross-bordercooperationinthisfield:thetensionsinherentindifferinglegalsystems(e.g.differentrequirementsconcerningtheadmissibilityofevidenceincourt);delaysinorfailuretoexecuteMLArequests;andthenon-coordinatedexecutionofsearch warrants.
The responses also attached importance to Eurojust’s supportinthisfield,withparticularregardtoitsabil-ity to provide assistance in the preparation and/or executionofMLAproceduresorinstrumentsandtoresolvingconflictsofjurisdiction.
30 Eurojust casework
Case illustration
AninvestigationconductedbytheLithuaniancustomsauthoritiesintobriberyandforgeryofdocu-mentsandtheunlawfulpossessionofgoodssubjecttoexcisedutyshowedthatLithuaniannationalsjoinedanOCGin2011toillegallybringlargequantitiesofcigarettesintotheEUmarket,avoidingex-cisedutiesandVAT.TheOCGtransportedthecigarettesfromoneexciseorcustomswarehousetoan-otherindifferentMemberStateswithoutpayingtaxes,byusingloopholesintheExciseMovementandControlSystem(EMCS),whichwasdevelopedtomonitorthetransportofexcisegoodsbetweentheMemberStates.TheinvestigationestablishedthatthecigaretteswerepartlydestinedfortheSwedishandUKmarkets.CriminalactivitieslinkedtotheoffencescommittedinLithuaniawerealsodiscov-eredinBulgaria,Cyprus,Denmark,Estonia,Germany,GreeceandPoland.
EurojustwasrequestedtosupportthejudicialcooperationduetothelargenumberofMemberStatesinvolved and because the modus operandi used by the OCG had not previously been detected in Lithu-ania.InMarch2013,acoordinationmeetingwasconvenedwithBelgium,Denmark,Germany,SwedenandtheUKtodiscussproactive judicialcooperationfor thepurposesofpreventing furthercrimesbeing committed using the same modus operandianddismantlingthecriminalgroup,aswellastoconsidertheestablishmentofaJIT.
AsaninvestigationintosimilarcriminalactivitieswasongoinginSweden,aJITagreementbetweenSwedenandLithuaniawassignedinJuly2013foraone-yearperiodtoidentifyandprosecutetheper-petrators.TheJITreceivedfundingfromEurojust,whichwasusedforthetranslationofdocumentsneededintheproceedingsofbothMemberStates.TheJITwasextendeduntilJanuary2015.
FourteenLithuaniansuspectswerebroughttotrialandLithuaniatransferredtheproceedingsagainsttwoSwedishnationalsarrestedinLithuaniatoSweden.InadditiontotheworkoftheJIT,thejudicialcooperation between all involved Member States resulted in witness hearings throughout Europe and theseizureofmillionsofillegalcigarettes.
The Lithuanian prosecutor stated that ‘the outcome achieved by 2014 would not have been possible without the judicial cooperation among participating Member States’.
2.1.4 MOCGs
The number of cases registered (128) and coordi-nation meetings (13) held at Eurojust in relation to MOCGsdecreasedgreatlyfromthelevelsrecordedin2013. This drop is linked to the change in the calcu-lationmethodologyappliedtothiscrimetypeasof1January 2014. The effect of the newmethodology isthat this crime type no longer includes (cases relating to) participation in a criminal association or organised crimeasanoffence,andislimitedtothefollowingof-fences:organisedpropertycrime(OPC)includingor-ganisedrobbery;motorvehiclecrime;andillicittraf-fickinginculturalgoods.JITsinvolvingthiscrimetypewentupsignificantly(13)comparedto2013.
OPCcasesarepredominatelybasedononeofthefol-lowingcoreoffences:OPCincludingorganisedrobbery
(58),motorvehiclecrime(15)or illicit trafficking incultural goods (5). When associated with other crimi-nalconduct,thesecrimesaretypicallylinkedtopartic-ipation in a criminal organisation (24) or murder (9).
The most requesting Member States in OPC cases wereFrance,Poland,BelgiumandtheCzechRepub-lic, while the most requested Member States wereFrance,Italy,DenmarkandRomania.
InadditiontocaseworkinthefieldofOPC,EurojusthasfocuseditsattentiononanalysingproceduralandlegalissuesinproceedingsonMOCGsspecialisinginOPC,aspartofaprojectundertakenwithintheframeworkoftheOAP2014forEMPACTpriorityOPC.Tothateffect,a report was prepared in 2014 with the main objec-tive of assessing law enforcement actors’ perceptionoftheextenttowhichlegalandproceduralissuesare
312014 Annual Report
anelementintheproliferationofMOCGsspecialisinginOPCandhow these issues influencepoliceopera-tionsagainstMOCGs,withtheresultthatactualpros-ecutionsorconvictionsrarelyoccur.Afollow-uptothe2014 report, expected in2015, is intended to tacklethesameissuesasthefirstreport,butfromthepointofviewofprosecutorsandjudges.
This Eurojust-supported project is due to reach its conclusion in2016,whenastrategic seminarwithprosecutors,judgesandrepresentativesofEMPACTpriorityOPCwillbeorganisedtoprovideaplatformfor exchanging views andbest practice. A final re-port providing recommendations to Member States will then be issued.
2.1.5 Drug trafficking
Thenumberofdrugtraffickingcasesgrewsignificant-ly (283),while thenumberof correspondingcoordi-nation meetings slightly decreased (52). The number
Case illustration
Since2013,investigationswerecarriedoutinBelgium,France,Italy,theNetherlands,RomaniaandtheUKintojewellerystorerobberiescommittedfrom2011onwards.TheinvestigationsuncoveredahierarchicalanddisciplinedOCG,composedofRomaniannationals,thatwasbelievedtobeactiveinmanyMemberStates.Theyplannedtheiractivitiescarefully,usingsledgehammersanddistractionmethodssuchasMolotovcocktails,crowdedstreetsandburningcars.Thejewellersweretargetedonthebasisofgetawayroutes.Itisbelievedthattheproceedsoftherobberies,amountingtoseveralmillioneuros,weretransferredtotheOCGinRomania.Theexchangeofinformationatpolicelevel(viaINTERPOL,Europolandbilaterally),andtheforensicanalysisofclothesandotherobjectsseizedatthecrimescenes,allowedsuspectstobelinkedtoanumberofrobberiesinseveralMemberStates.
SeveralcaseswereregisteredatEurojust,andacoordinationmeetingbetweentheUKandRomaniawasconvenedinJune2013thatresultedintheestablishmentofaJITbetweentheUKandRomaniaonemonth later.Belgium joined the JIT fivemonths later.The JIT received funding fromEurojust.The support provided by Eurojust ensured that JIT members could take a pragmatic approach to the handlingofevidenceandeasilyaccessinformationavailable intheongoinginvestigations.Asare-sultoflinksbetweentherobberiesthroughoutEurope,ItalyandtheUKhostedanothercoordinationmeetinginDecember2013withBelgium,Croatia,France,Hungary,Italy,theNetherlands,Romania,Slovenia,SpainandtheUKinattendance.Up-to-dateinformationontheinvestigationsandprosecu-tionswasshared.Afterthemeeting, further informationwasexchangedandassessedonnewrob-beriescommittedbymembersofthesameOCG.AlthoughnocrimeswerecommittedinRomania,theinformationprovidedbytheRomanianauthoritiestotheotherparticipatingStateswasessentialtothesuccessfuljudicialcooperationinthiscase.
EAWswereissuedbyseveralMemberStatesandarrestsweremadeinBelgium,France,ItalyandtheUK.Manysuspectswerecaughtintheactandoftenpleadedguiltywhenfacingtrial.Bytheendof2014,morethan20peoplehadbeenconvictedintheinvolvedStates.Thecasewasongoingin2014andfur-ther trials and convictions are expected in 2015.
of JITs dealing with this crime type increased (31)comparedto2013.Drugtraffickingisthesecondmostcommon crime type in Eurojust’s 2014 casework.
Followingapatternseenthepreviousyear, thevastmajorityofdrugtraffickingcasesregisteredin2014dealtwiththiscrimeasastand-aloneoffence(223).Participationinacriminalorganisation(37),organ-ised crime (19) and money laundering (16) were the mostoften-linkedcrimes.Thecontrolledsubstancesmostfrequentlytargetedinthesecaseswerecanna-bis and cocaine.
The most requesting Member States vis-à-vis drug traffickingcaseswereSpain,ItalyandSlovenia.Spain,the Netherlands and Italy were the most requested Member States.
Inadditiontoitsoperationalcasework,Eurojusthasbeen particularly active at strategic level in this crime priority.Itinteractedwithmanyofthekeyplayersin
32 Eurojust casework
thisfield,suchasEMCDDA,thePompidouGroup,andthe European Network of Prosecutors on SyntheticDrugs and Psychoactive Substances (ENPSDP).
Inthisregard,EurojustparticipatedintheprojectledbytheENPSDPandtheCouncilofEurope(thePom-pidou Group and HELP) to create a website dedicated to prosecutors specialising in synthetic drugs.
Cooperation with EMCDDA
TheDirectorofEMCDDAattendedtheCollegemeet-ingof15 Julyandexchangedviewsoncooperation.Attheendofthemeeting,thePresidentofEurojustandtheDirectorofEMCDDAsignedaMemorandumof Understanding (MoU). The MoU paves the wayto reinforced cooperation between the two bodieson drug-related matters and will be implemented through joint activities. These activities will be deci-dedonthebasisofthepartners’respectiveworkpro-grammes.InSeptember,EMCDDAparticipatedinthestrategic meeting on drug trafficking by deliveringa presentation entitled The EU drug situation. Drug penalties and indicatorsandbydiscussing,duringtherelated workshop, possible solutions to the issuescausedbydifferencesinlegislationonnewpsychoac-tive substances (NPS) and (pre)precursors.
Case illustration
In2013, twotrucksbearingDutch licenseplates, coming from Spain and driven bytwoDutchnationals,weresubjectedtoaninspection by French customs officers. Inthefirsttruck,theinvestigatorsfoundandseized901kilogrammesofcannabis.Whilenocannabiswasfoundinthesecondlorry,ahidingplacefordrugswasdiscovered.
The two Dutch nationals were arrested by the French authorities and an investi-gation into the alleged conspiracy to im-port drugs was opened against them in France.Accordingtotheirtestimonies,thetwo drivers worked for the same crimi-nal network, operating in three MemberStates.ThedrugswerepickedupinSpain,France was a transit State and the Nether-lands was the end destination. A suspect was identified as the head of logistics ofthis drug trafficking network and it wassubsequently discovered that parallel in-vestigations into the same OCG were be-ingcarriedoutintheNetherlandsfordrugtraffickingandmoneylaundering.
ThesupportofEurojustwasrequested tocoordinate these parallel investigations and tofacilitatetheexecutionofMLArequests,particularlytoavoidfacingane bis in idem issue. A coordination meeting between France,theNetherlandsandSpainwassetup inMarch2014.At thismeeting, itwasagreedfirstlytosendanMLArequestfromthe Netherlands to France to obtain a copy oftheFrenchfileandtocarryoutaninter-viewwith the two arrested suspects, andsecondly that France would send an MLA requesttoSpaintoverifytheconfessionofoneof the twosuspectsand toclarify theprecise involvementof thecompanyserv-ingaspick-uplocationforthedrugs.
TheSpanishauthoritiesconfirmedthepick-uplocationaswellasitsowner,aDutchna-tional residing inSpain,and identifiedhisconnection to suspects arrested in France. The Dutch national was arrested as a mem-beroftheinvestigatedOCG.
Strategic meeting on drug trafficking
A strategicmeetingondrug trafficking, or-ganisedbyEurojust,washeldinTheHagueon29and30September. In total, 80pros-ecutors,lawenforcementauthoritiesandex-pertsinthedrugtraffickingfieldfromacrosstheMemberStatesmetfortwodaysofinten-sive workshops and discussions. Contribu-tions were also received from representa-tivesofBrazil,theUSAandNorway,aswellas EU bodies and international organisa-tions,includingEuropol,EMCDDA,theCoun-cilofEurope(PompidouGroup)andUNODC.
This strategicmeeting,which followed upon Eurojust’s strategic seminar on drug traffickingheldinKrakowinOctober2011,under thePolishPresidencyof theEU, fo-cused on increasing the effectiveness ofinternational judicial cooperation in drug traffickingcases.Inparticular,themeeting’s
332014 Annual Report
discussionsaddressedthefollowingareas:controlleddeliveries,NPSand(pre)precur-sors,andcooperationwiththirdStates.
The outcome reportofthemeeting,togeth-er with the Implementation Report of theAction Plan on Drug Trafficking and sup-porting material,canbefoundonEurojust’swebsite. See also Section 3.2.
2.1.6 Cybercrime
ThenumberofcybercrimecasesregisteredatEuro-just (42) increased substantially; cybercrime-related coordination meetings experienced a 50 per cent in-crease(15),andsix JITswereestablished.Althoughtypicallyassociatedwiththecrimesofparticipationin a criminal organisation (11) and swindling and fraud (16), cases registered in2014alsodealtwithcybercrimeasastand-aloneoffence(15).
ThemostrequestingMemberStatesinthefieldofcy-bercrimewereRomania,theUKandHungary,whilethemostrequestedMemberStateswereFrance,Den-mark and the Netherlands.
Eurojust is associated with the Illegal Trade on On-lineMarketplaces(ITOM)Project,whichisaDutch-ledinitiativefundedbytheEuropeanUnion,topro-mote an integrated approach against illegal trade on anonymousmarketplaces on the Internet, by initi-ating coordinated interventions in close coopera-tionwith(inter)nationallawenforcementagenciesincluding the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3),judicialauthorities,otherpublicorganisations,andtheprivatesectorwithintheEuropeanUnion.
EurojustisalsoassociatedwiththeTrainingofTrain-ers and Certification Programme Project (TOT),whichisaSpanishEU-fundedprojecttosignificantlyimprove the effectiveness, cooperation and mutualunderstandingbetweenlawenforcementauthorities(LEAs) and prosecutors in the fight against cyber-crime.Themainobjectivesof theproject are toor-ganisea‘trainthetrainer’courseforLEAsandpros-ecutorsandtocreateaframeworkforcertificationofEuropean cybercrime investigators and prosecutors.
Cooperation with EC3
Eurojust continued to support theworkof EC3by
Strategic meeting on cybercrime
On 19 and 20 November, Eurojust helda strategic meeting entitled Cybercrime - rising to the challenges of the 21st century,with theparticipationof judicial andpo-liceexpertsfromtheMemberStates,whoshared their expertise and views during interactive workshop sessions. The meet-ing focused on topics related to cyber-crime: admissibility of e-evidence, trans-border access to data and data retention.
In the margins of the Eurojust strategicmeeting on cybercrime, a brainstormingsessionforEUprosecutorsspecialisingincy-bercrimetookplaceon21November,whichofferedanopportunity toexploremethodsandtoolsofstrengtheningtheircooperationinthisfield.See also Section 3.3.
attending meetings of the Programme Board, andsince July 2014 by posting a College member repre-sentingEurojustatEC3tofacilitatetheexchangeofinformation. Furthermore, to enhance cooperationwithEC3,negotiationswerefinalisedandapprovalgivenforthemodelAgreement between Eurojust and Europol for the temporary placement of a Eurojust representative to the European Cybercrime Centre.
ThepurposeofthetemporarypostingofaEurojustrepresentative at EC3 is to facilitate the exchangeof information, tohelpensureadmissibilityof evi-denceinjudicialproceedings,tofacilitatetheearlyinvolvementofEurojustandtooptimisecoverageofthe judicial dimension within EC3.
The presence of a Eurojust representative can in-crease the effectivenessof prosecutions and,whereappropriate,theconfiscationofassetsincybercrimecases.Todoso, theEurojustrepresentativemayat-tend operational meetings organised by EC3, willpromote Eurojust’s role and tasks when setting up a JIT, andwill assist national authorities, particularlywhencoordinationofsimultaneousinvestigativeandjudicial activities is required.
InDecember,Eurojustlaunchedacallforexpressionsofinterestintherecruitmentofasecondednationalexpert(SNE)fortheprimarypurposeofrepresentingEurojust at EC3.
34 Eurojust casework
Case illustration
Eurojust’s Annual Report 2013 presented a case example concerning criminal proceedings against an OCGofBulgarianoriginthatspecialisedinfraudandcounterfeiting,particularlythroughthecloningofcreditcardsbyplacingelectronicreadingdevicesonATMs.TheOCGharvestedfinancialdatafromATMsinSpainandotherMemberStatestocreatefakecreditanddebitcardsthatwerethenusedtowithdrawlargeamountsofcash,alsofromATMs.
Eurojust hosted a coordination meeting in April 2013 in which the Spanish and Bulgarian authorities and Europolparticipated.AJITbetweenallpartieswasestablishedtofacilitatecooperationandexchangeevidence.AcommonactiondayinOctober2013ineasternSpainledtothreehousesearches,thearrestofsixindividuals,theseizureof15devicesusedtocopyPINs,severaldevicestorecordtheinformationontocredit/debitcardmagneticstrips,severallaptops,anddocumentsplottingATMlocations.
Encouragedbythisfirstsuccessfulaction,theJITcontinueditsworkwithparallelinvestigationsheldbothinBulgariaandSpain,intendingtocompletelyidentifythegroupstructureandenableitsdisman-tling.TheexchangeofinformationandevidencethroughtheJITallowedtheinvestigatingauthoritiestoidentifythemainsuspectsinBulgariaandSpain,locatetheirresidencesandcollectincriminatingevidence.Thenextstepwastocarryoutsimultaneousactionstoarrestthesuspectsandcollectfur-ther evidence through personal and site searches.
OneofthemainissuesinthisrespectwastodecidewhetherthearrestswouldbebasedonEAWsissuedbybothnationalauthoritiesonthegroundsoftheirrespectivecriminalproceedings,orwhetheroneMemberState would take the lead and issue EAWs towards the other party as needed. A decision regarding the lat-teroptionwouldneedtobemadeattheverylastminuteinviewofthelatestdevelopmentsandevidenceobtainedbytheinvestigation.Tothisend,acoordinationcentreledbytheSpanishandBulgarianDeskswas set up at Eurojust in January 2014 to ensure that judicial decisions were made in a timely and agreed mannerandimmediatelyimplemented.OntheadviceoftheBulgarianDesk,theEAWsissuedbytheSpan-ishauthoritiesweredraftedandtranslatedwiththeassistanceofEurojustpriortothecoordinationcentre,asunderBulgarianlegislationthetimelimitforissuinganEAWafterthedetentionofarequestedpersonisonly24hours.TheawarenessofthislegislativespecificityandtheproactiveapproachoftheNationalDesksatEurojustensuredthetimelyissuanceoftheEAWsduringthecoordinationcentre.
The coordination centre acted in close cooperation with EC3. The common actions led to 16 arrests andthesearchingof14housesandtwocompanies. Itemsseized included19mobile telephones,21debitcards,severallaptopsandotherelectronicdevices-includingthosedesignedtocommitskimmingoffences.ExpertsfromEC3andEuropol’sliaisonofficerswereequippedwithamobileoffice,whichal-lowedthecross-checking,analysisandexchangeof intelligence inreal time.Simultaneously,Europolrepresentatives were deployed to Bulgaria and Spain to support the operation on the ground. An ad-ditionalactiondayinFebruaryresultedinthreearrestsandfourhousesearches.Twofactorieswereraidedandequipmentusedforskimmingwasseized,includingblankcards,camerasandcardreaders.
Followingthetacticalactions,theroleofEurojustextendedtosupportingthecompetentnationalauthori-tiesindiscussingthemostappropriatejudicialfollow-up,andon20February,acoordinationmeetingwasconvenedwiththeBulgarianandSpanishinvestigativeauthoritiestodiscusstheexistingevidence,thepro-gressofnationalcriminalproceedingsandtheapplicablenationalproceduralandsubstantivecriminallaw.The parties agreed that the Spanish authorities were in a better position to prosecute due to the advanced stageoftheirinvestigation,whichwouldbereinforcedbytheevidenceobtainedthroughtheBulgarianproceedings.Tothatend,theevidentiarymaterialsseizedinBulgariawerethentransferredtoSpain.ThepartiesagreedthattheSpanishauthoritieswouldissueaformalrequesttotheirBulgariancounterparts
352014 Annual Report
totransferalltheexistingproceedingssothatall the suspects would be tried only in Spain. During the meeting, the formalities and le-gal requirements were discussed in order to surrender the suspects in pre-trial custody in BulgariabywayofEAWs.
2.1.7 Illegal immigration
Cases concerning illegal immigration registered at Eurojust in 2014 (32) increased. This positive trend wasconfirmedbythegrowthofrelatedcoordinationmeetings(10)andJITs(9),withtheformerdoublingthe 2013 figure. The majority of these cases dealtwith the crimeof illegal immigration (22),while insome instances the cases were associated with the crimeofparticipationinacriminalorganisation(5).
Belgium,theUK,HungaryandItalywerethemostre-questingMemberStateswithinthefieldofillegalim-migration cases,while themost requestedMemberStateswereItaly,FranceandtheUK.
EurojustappointedacontactpointfortheInternation-alOrganizationforMigrationregionalprojectStrength-ening the fight against trafficking in persons and mi-grant smuggling in the Western Balkans and attended thefirstworkshop,whichtookplaceinSkopjeintheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedoniaon17and19December.Theproject,financedbytheItaliangovern-ment,isintendedtostrengthenthecapacityandcross-bordercooperationofstakeholdersfromtheWesternBalkans in fightingcross-border transgressions,suchastraffickinginhumanbeingsandmigrantsmuggling.
FollowingtheCommunicationoftheEuropeanCom-mission on 4 December 2013 on the work of TaskForceMediterranean,theEuropeanAsylumSupportOffice(EASO)launchedapilotprojectinMaytolearnmore about the phenomenon of facilitation of per-sons seeking international protection. Eurojust has joined the project as an observer.
2.1.8 Terrorism
While thenumberof terrorism cases registered atEurojust (14) decreased slightly in comparison to 2013,thenumberofcoordinationmeetings(4)andJITs(2)increased.Caseworkmostlyfocusedonter-rorismasadistinctoffence,althoughtherewerein-stances where murder was also linked to the case (2).
ThemostrequestingMemberStateswereSpain,theNetherlands, Portugal and the UK, while Germany,France and Belgium were the most requested.
Foreign Fighters: Eurojust’s Insight into the Phenomenon and the Criminal Justice Re-sponse - Updated Report
In2014,Eurojustcollectedandanalysedrelevantin-formation for theupdateof the classified reporton
Annual strategic meeting on terrorism
The strategicmeeting of 4 June, attendedby the Eurojust National Correspondents forTerrorism,coveredthetopicEurojust’s role in counter-terrorism – Eurojust counter-terrorism deliverables. The participants ex-changedinformationonterrorismoffencesand counter-terrorism strategies and re-flectedonmethodsofsharingdataeffective-ly.ThelatestavailableeditionsofEurojust’sTerrorism Convictions Monitor (TCM) (see below) and Maritime Piracy Judicial Monitor (MPJM) (see subsection 2.3.3), the Memo-randumonTerrorist Financing, theCBRN-E Handbook, as well as Europol’s TE-SAT2014,werepresentedatthemeeting.
Tactical meeting on terrorism
Thetacticalmeetingonterrorismof5Juneaddressed the topic Current trends in the EU counter-terrorism framework: foreign fight-ers in Syria – Judicial cooperation with third States in this field. The morning session wasattendedbyexpertsfromtheMemberStates,delegatesfromtheUSAandNorwayandrepresentatives fromEuropolandtheOffice of the EU Counter-Terrorism Coor-dinator. The Eurojust RESTRICTED report onforeignfightersinSyria,itsconclusionsandananalysisofrecentdevelopmentsinthis matter were presented and discussed bytheparticipants.Theafternoonsessionoftheeventfocusedonjudicialcooperationwith third States to counter foreign fight-ers. Counter-terrorism experts from theWestern Balkans and Turkey joined this session and shared their experience related to their investigations and trials.
36 Eurojust casework
foreignfightersitreleasedin2013.Theupdatedre-port identifiedchallengesstemming from investiga-tions and prosecutions of aspiring foreign fightersand returnees, recruiters and facilitators, and high-lighted some relevant national practices.
ThereportcontainsEurojust’sreflectionsonthepossi-blemethodsofenhancingsomemechanismsandtoolswithaviewtoreinforcingtheeffectivenessoftheEu-ropeanUnionandnationalcriminalpolicyresponsetothe phenomenon. The report was adopted by the Col-legeandclassifiedasEurojustandEURESTRICTED.
Eurojust contributed to the TE-SAT 2014 by provid-ing data on convictions and penalties for terroristoffences in theMemberStatesandrelevantamend-ments in national legislation on terrorism.
CBRN-E Handbook
TheCBRN-EHandbookprovidesEUprac-titioners with specialist multi–sector legal supportforinvestigationsandprosecutionsrelatedto‘chemical,biological,radiological,nuclear and explosive’ (CBRN-E) transna-tionalcrimes.Itprovidesanoverviewofthebasic European and international adminis-trative and criminal legislation applicable toCBRN-Esubstances,includingwaste.TheCBRN-E Handbook is updated annually and shared with pertinent external actors.
Memorandum on Terrorist Financing
Eurojust’s Memorandum on Terrorist Fi-nancingcontainsanoverviewofthelegalinstruments and standards adopted at internationalandEUleveltocounterter-roristfinancing,providingasummaryoftheir provisions. It also presents the state ofplayofEurojust’sinvolvementinjudi-cialcooperationintheareaofcounteringterrorist financing. The MemorandumwasfirstissuedbyEurojustin2006.Thefourthupdatedversionof theMemoran-dumwasreleasedin2014,followingpre-vious updates in 2008 and 2011.
Terrorism Convictions Monitor (TCM)
Since 2008, Eurojust has published theTCM regularly. The TCM is an internal re-portclassifiedasEurojustLIMITED,whichisbasedonopensource informationandcontains data provided by the national au-thorities in the implementation of Coun-cil Decision 2005/671/ JHA. It provides a regular overview of terrorism-relatedconvictions and acquittals throughout theEuropeanUnionaswellasanalyticalandstatisticalinformation.
2.1.9 THB
Eurojust’s casework in THB recorded a decrease with regard toboth thenumberof registered cases (71)and coordination meetings (12).
Thenumberof JITsestablishedonTHB-relatedmat-tersgrewto18fromthe15recordedin2013.SexualexploitationcontinuedtobethemaintypeofTHBcaseatEurojustasin2013,andmostlyoccurredassingle-offence cases, although theywere sometimesassoci-ated with participation in a criminal organisation (12).
Bulgaria,theUKandRomaniawerethemostrequest-ingMemberStates,whileRomania,GermanyandIta-ly were the most requested.
In2012,EurojustinitiatedastrategicprojectentitledEurojust’s action against trafficking in human beings (THB Project). The THB Project identified and ad-dressed the reasons underlying the limited number ofTHBprosecutionsintheEuropeanUnionandtheproblems in judicial cooperation in THB cases. It also analysedtheaddedvalueofEurojust’sinvolvementinTHBcasesandidentifiedotheractionsEurojustcouldtaketoassistMemberStatesinbringinghumantraf-fickersefficientlytojustice.
Eurojust is monitoring the progress achieved in im-plementing the action plan and prepared a mid-term evaluation report of its results.This reportwillbediscussed during a strategic meeting on THB to be organised by Eurojust in 2015.
TocommunicateEurojust’sactivities inthisarea,aTHB Project webpage was created in April and can
372014 Annual Report
be foundonEurojust’swebsite.Thewebpage con-tainsanumberof itemsof significance to thepro-ject,suchasthereportandactionplanoftheEuro-just strategic project and the reportofthestrategicmeetingof2012.
On17October,ontheoccasionofthe8thEUAnti-Trafficking Day, the European Commission pub-lished the Mid-term report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy towards the eradication of Traf-ficking in Human Beings 2012-2016. The mid-term report contains an Annex that includes a Report on Joint Actions in the field of Trafficking in Human
Case illustration
InvestigationsintheNetherlands,BelgiumandHungaryshowedthatagroupofindividualsofHun-garianoriginwas involved in forcedprostitution in theNetherlandsandBelgium.Thenetworkfalselypromisedwell-paidjobstoHungarianwomenofRomabackgroundandorganisedtheirtrav-eltotheNetherlandsandBelgium.Uponarrival,thevictimswereforcedintoprostitution.MostoftheirearningswerehandedovertothemembersofthenetworkandtransferredtoHungary.
This casewas initiated by theNetherlandswithin the EMPACTproject on THB in 2013,whichshowedpositiveresultsin2014.WhileallrequestedMemberStates-Belgium,Hungary,Germany,AustriaandtheUK-participatedinthefirstoffourcoordinationmeetingsheldin2013,itlaterbe-came clear that only the links to Belgium and Hungary proved strong enough to open investigations in these Member States.
FourcoordinationmeetingswereconvenedatEurojust.Bothpriortoandfollowingthecoordina-tionmeetings,LevelIImeetingswereheldtoinformtheNationalDesksinvolvedofthepriorandfutureDutchinvestigationandtodiscussthepossibilityofaJIT.
Atthethirdcoordinationmeeting,thedraftJITagreementwasdiscussedandthereadinessoftheinvolved parties to sign the agreement was considered. Europol’s Focal Point Phoenix provided cross-checkreportstotheparticipantsofthecoordinationmeetings.OperationalmeetingswerealsoorganisedatEuropoltoidentifyagroupoftoptargetsonwhichtheinvestigationshouldfocus.AtthefinalcoordinationmeetinginDecember2013,theJITagreementwassignedbytheNether-lands,BelgiumandHungary.TheJITreceivedEurojustfundingin2014.
InFebruary2014,abilateralLevelIImeetingwasconvenedbetweentheDutchandUKDeskstoensurethesmoothcontinuationoftheJITinvestigation.ApotentialvictimoftraffickingwasabouttotraveltotheUKandtobecheckedattheborder.BycontactingtheUKpolicetoobtainassurancethatthecheckattheborderwouldsimplybearoutineprocedure,theUKDeskallayedconcernsexpressed at this meeting that this action might jeopardise the investigation.
On12and13March,anactiondaytookplaceinHungaryandBelgiumthatresultedinsixhousesearchesbeingperformedsimultaneously.Alargequantityofcashinlocalcurrency,sevenluxurycars,jewellery,mobiletelephones,passportsandothersignificantevidencewereseized.Twosus-pects were arrested in Hungary and eight in Belgium. The case was ongoing in 2014.
Beings that seven JHA agencies (CEPOL, EASO, Eu-ropol,Eurojust,FRA,FrontexandEIGE)developedbetween October 2012 and October 2014.
As a follow-up to the Commission’s report, andwith a view to complementing it, the JHA Agen-cies jointly produced a document listing the main actions developed individually by the Agencies in thefieldofTHBinthatperiod.Oneexampleofsuchjoint action is the CEPOL Module on THB that was produced with the support of Frontex, Europol,Eurojust, FRAandEIGEand launchedonCEPOL’swebsiteattheendofMarch2013.
38 Eurojust casework
2.2.1 Money laundering
WhilemoneylaunderingisnotoneofEurojust’scrimeprioritiesfortheperiod2014-2017,itstillaccountedfor220ofallcasesregisteredatEurojust,aclear in-creasecomparedtothefiguresrecordedin2013(193),andconsolidatesthegrowthinthisareaofEurojust’soperational work that began in 2012 (144). Money laundering cases are mostly dealt with in conjunction withrelatedoffencessuchasfraud(84)orparticipa-tioninacriminalorganisation(52).However,theyalsofocusonmoneylaunderingasadiscrete,stand-alonecrime (71). The most requesting Member States were France,SpainandItaly.SpainwasthemostrequestedMemberState,followedbyGermanyandtheUK.
2.2.2 Environmental crime
The number of cases dealing with environmentaloffencesregisteredatEurojust (5)dropped incom-parison with 2013 (8). These cases dealt with envi-ronmental crimeas a stand-aloneoffence (3), or inassociationwith fraud(1)andillegal trading(1). Inthe field of environmental crime, the Netherlands,Germany, the CzechRepublic and Swedenwere themost requesting Member States. Among the most re-questedMemberStateswereFrance,Greece,Ireland,Latvia,theNetherlandsandPoland.
In November, Eurojust published the Report on the Strategic Project on Environmental Crime. The Report summarisesthefindingsoftheStrategicProjectonEn-vironmental Crime that Eurojust launched in 2013. It highlights the main problems encountered by the Na-tional Authorities in prosecuting environmental crime andattemptstopresentsuggestionsforaddressingcer-taindifficulties,particularlythoselinkedtocross-bordercooperation,withaspecialfocusonillegaltraffickingofwaste, trafficking of endangered species and surfacewater pollution. The Report also outlines the diverse na-tional organisational structures to tackle environmental crime and access to expertise in the Member States.
In April, Eurojust contributed to the Commission’sCommunicationontheEUApproachagainstWildlifeTraffickingbysendingitsinputtoDGEnvironment.
2.2.3 Maritime piracy
Further to the publication of Eurojust’s first issueof theMaritime Piracy JudicialMonitor (MPJM) in
July 2013, the College approved the continuationoftheMPJManddecidedtoopenacasetowardsallMemberStates,specificallydesignedtoaddressthistopic.ThenexteditionoftheMPJMisexpectedtobepublished in April 2015. In keeping with the goals set for its firstedition,theMPJMintendstoofferatooltoassistpractitionersintheresolutionofprob-lemsarisingintheinvestigationandprosecutionofpiracy-relatedoffences.
EurojustinteractedwithseveralkeyplayersaspartofthepreparatoryworkforthenextMPJM,withaviewtocollaboratingwithandfollowingtheworkofrele-vant regional and international bodies active in coun-tering maritime piracy. These bodies included the Eu-ropeanExternalActionService(EEAS),theEuropeanSecurityandDefenceCollege(ESDC),theUnitedNa-tions,INTERPOL,andtheContactGrouponPiracyofftheCoastofSomalia(CGPCS),whichwaschairedbytheEuropeanUnionin2014.
2.2 Eurojust assistance in other fields of criminal activity
2.2.4 Eurojust Contact Point for Child Protection
Twenty-nine cases were registered involving victim-ised children. These cases were typically associated withoffencessuchaschildabuseimages(7)andkid-napping(7).TheUKandSpainwerethemostrequest-ingMemberStates,whileGermany,Romania, Franceand Greece were the most requested Member States.
Eurojust’sdeterminationtocounteranyformofchildabuseisreinforcedbytheworkoftheContactPointforChildProtection.TheContactPoint ismandatedto represent Eurojust in child protection and related matters vis-à-vis national authorities, law enforce-ment organisations and other national or interna-tionalbodiesactiveinthefieldofchildprotection.
Within this framework, the Contact Point attendedtheexpertconference,Child Alerting in the EU: Sav-ing the lives of endangered missing children,thatwasheldintheEuropeanParliament,andparticipatedintheconference,Lawyers in Europe on Parental Child Abduction(LEPCA),whichtookplaceinTheHague.
The Contact Point’s role includes advising on and supporting the use by Eurojust’s National Desks oftoolsandmeasuresspecificallydesignedforcriminalinvestigationsandproceedingsconcerningchildren,such as witness/victim protection and INTERPOL’s database on missing children.
International cooperation in the BlackShades case
CANADA
UNITED KINGDOM
THE NETHERLANDS
FRANCE
SWITZERLAND
CHILE
ITALY
SLOVENIA
AUSTRIA
MOLDOVA
GERMANY
ESTONIA
AUSTRALIA
SWEDEN
FINLAND
DENMARK
BELGIUM
CROATIA
UNITED STATES
Source: adapted from FBI graphic
392014 Annual Report
Operation BlackShades: Case of the year
BlackShades was an organisation developing and sell-ingmalicioussoftware(malware)thatenabledbuyerstoinfectcomputersandremotelytakeoverandcontroltheoperationsoftheinfectedcomputers,andperformdistributed denial-of-service (DDoS) cyber-attacks,among other things. An FBI investigation revealed linkstoseveralMemberStates.AnexamplefromtheNetherlands of how the malware could be used forcriminalpurposeswasthatofan18-year-oldmanwhoinfectedatleast2000computers,controllingthevic-tims’webcamstotakepicturesofwomenandgirls.
Eurojust was approached through the Dutch prosecu-torwhowasincontactwiththeFBIandtheUSAttor-ney’sOfficeregardingthisinvestigation.WhiletheUSauthorities intended to take down the BlackShades server, they did not have the intention of pursuingforeignsubjectsforprosecutionintheUSA.Ascrea-tors,sellersandusersofBlackShadesmalwareweretargetedbyjudicialandlawenforcementauthoritiesin16Statesduringthisworldwideinvestigation,theaddedvalueofjudicialcooperationwasapparentandthe Netherlands opened a case in November 2013; a coordination meeting was convened in the same month. Three additional coordination meetings were organisedinJanuary,AprilandJuly2014.
The objective of the initial coordinationmeetingwasto ascertain which States could take judicial measures againstidentifiedsubjectsandtoexplorethepossibil-ity of a common judicial approach among the Statesinvolved.Althougharrangedonrelativelyshortnotice,authoritiesfromtherequestingState,theUSA,Romania,Belgium,Germany,FranceandrepresentativesfromEC3at Europol attended the meeting. Some States had been carrying out their own investigations into this malware andacknowledgedtheneedforjudicialcooperationatinternational level. It was evident that States other than thoseparticipatinginthemeetingwereaffected,andatsubsequentmeetings,theseStateswereinvited.
TheUSauthoritieswerealreadyatanadvancedstagein their investigationsand informed this firstmeet-ingofatwo-stepplan:thedismantlingoftheBlack-Shades organisation and the international takedown oftheservertostopthesaleofthesoftware.Theco-ordinationmeetingcontributed to theUS investiga-tions through the identification of 20 customers ofthe BlackShades organisation.
Investigations in the participating Member States wereatdifferentstages,whichinevitablymeantthatsometimewasneededtoaligntheeffortsofthevarious
Lodewijk van Zwieten and Koen Hermans
40 Eurojust casework
national authorities. Several States indicated that whilesomesuspectshadbeenidentified,therewasaneedformoreinformationeithertobeabletoopenacase or to enrich the data already available.
ParticipantsofthemeetingwereinformedthatnotonlysuspectsintheUSA,butalsoinMemberStates,wereal-readyknownfor,orcouldbelinkedto,othercybercrimeoffences.ForoneMemberState,thepossessionofacopyofthemalicioussoftwareitselfwasimportant,whileforanotherMemberState,themerepossessionofthesoft-warewasnotenough,andithadtobeshownthatthesoftwarewascreatedpredominantlyforillegaluse.
The investigation culmi-nated in a common ac-tion lasting two days in May 2014, coordinatedby Eurojust through a coordination centre at Eurojust, supported byEC3. During the two
action days, 359 house searches were carried outworldwide,and97peoplewerearrested.Over1100datastoragedevicessuspectedofbeingusedinillegalactivitieswereseized, includingcomputers, laptops,mobiletelephones,routers,externalharddrivesandUSBmemorysticks.Substantialquantitiesofcash,il-legalfirearmsanddrugswereseized.AuthoritiesalsosucceededinseizingthedomainoftheBlackShadeswebsite. States that undertook actions were the Neth-erlands,Belgium,France,Germany, theUK,Finland,Austria, Estonia, Denmark, Italy, Croatia, the USA,Canada,Chile,SwitzerlandandMoldova.
Eurojust assisted the involved States by delivering overviewsofthestatusoftheinvestigationsineachState and by providing judicial assistance. Repre-sentativesofEuropolandtheFBIwerepresentatthecoordinationcentresetupatEurojust,andEC3pro-vided real-time analytical support. EC3 was also com-mittedtosupportingthefollow-upandidentificationofvictims,aswellastopromotingtechnicalsolutionsto protect computers against this malware.
The Dutch prosecutor in chargeofthecaseandtheAssistant to the National Member for the Nether-lands jointly commented on the success achieved: ‘Operation BlackShades is a fine example of cross-border judicial cooperation in practice. The Internet is not a safe environment for criminals. This case, involv-
ing so many Member States and third States, with the common goal of stopping further cyber-attacks, shows the potential of worldwide joint actions and points the way to future common efforts. We are very pleased with the outcome.’
Based on meeting reports and the evaluation per-formedintheaftermathofthecommonactiondays,itwas possible to detect some legal and practical chal-lengesthathadanimpactonthetimeframeandtheoutcomeofthecase.Anumberoflessonslearnedandbestpracticeinthiscasewereidentified.
Legal and practical issues
` Achallengethroughoutthecasewasthefactthattheinvestigationswereatdifferentstagesintheparticipating States: at the first coordinationmeeting, itbecameclearthatsomeStatesneed-edanadditionalperiodofup to twomonths toreceiveadditional informationregarding theal-leged criminal acts.
` The advantages of extending the case to a largenumberofStatesandcoveringasmanycriminalacts as possible had to be weighed against the dis-advantages of delays and loss of momentum inStates in which the investigations were at a more advanced stage.
` At thebeginningof theEurojust case, someStatesneededtoenrichtheirdatathroughMLAtohavesuf-ficientevidencetopursuethecaseatnationallevel.
` SomeStateswere limitedby the fact thatposses-sion of the software alone was not sufficient tocommence judicial proceedings against the sus-pect, that therewasaneedtoprovethemalwarehad caused damage and that victims had been iden-tified.Othersneededtoprovethatthesoftwarehadbeencreatedforpredominantlyillegaluse.
` SeveralStatesindicatedthatinformationfortheirinvestigations was needed quickly to comply with data retention terms, which varied among theStates and depended on whether the term con-cerned IP addresses only or also other data.
` In some States, several cases concerning Black-Shades were opened, which added complexityto the coordination of the case. For instance inFrance,wherenonationalcyberprosecutorexists,coordination had to be ensured between the eight interregionalspecialisedjurisdictions,whichrep-resent 161 prosecution districts.
Investigation culminates in a two-day coordination centre held at Eurojust in May 2014. Photo © Eurojust
412014 Annual Report
` In some instances, authorisation to publish apressreleaseisrequiredfrommorethanoneau-thority.Awarenessoftheaccuratecontactpointsand early communication ensured timely publi-cationofthepressrelease.
Lessons learned
` Two common action days appeared at the time tobethemethodofdeliveringthebestpossibleresult.However,asnewsontheInternetspreadsswiftly, synchronising the timing of searches,seizuresandarrestsinfutureoperationsistobepreferred, particularly when large-scale opera-tions are involved.
` The importance of collecting information on thevictims and financial loss caused by themalwarewasemphasized,assentencingincybercrimecases,particularlyintheUSA,isvictim-andloss-driven.
` Insteadoffocusingsolelyonrepressivemeasures,theUKundertookhigh-volumepreventativeactiv-itytodeterlower-levelpurchasersofBlackShadesfrombecominginvolvedincybercrime.Thisactiv-ity involved sending warning e-mails and letters to approximately 500 purchasers and warning visits by the National Crime Agency (NCA) and po-licestafftoapproximately100purchasers.
Best practice
` During the first coordination meeting, partici-pants pointed to the positive effects of having ameeting at judicial level at an early stage of thecase,asinmostMemberStatesdecisionsregard-ingsearches,seizuresandarrestsaretakenatju-dicial level. Early coordination at judicial level also madeitpossibletofindaunifiedapproachamong
theMember States to ensure sufficient informa-tionforconvictionsinseveralMemberStates.
` The distribution of points of discussion prior tothe coordination meeting was seen as very advan-tageous to the productivity and concrete outcome ofthemeeting.
` To streamline and simplify the house searches andinterviewsregardingthemalwareinquestion,anFBIInterview/Search Guide was circulated by Europol viaitsSecureInformationExchangeNetworkAppli-cation (SIENA) to the participating authorities. Due to the complications involved in securing evidence in cy-bercrimecases,thisguidewasconsideredveryuseful.
` Toholdadebriefingafterthecoordinationcentrewasvaluableinidentifyingtheaddedvalueofthiscoordination tool and drawing lessons from thecooperation during the common action days.
` The evaluation of the case at the final meetingshowedthatEurojust’sanalysisofthejudicialsitu-ation in the participating States at the early stages ofthecasewasadvantageoustotheresultsofthecase,asthisanalysisallowedthenationalauthori-ties to come prepared to the coordination meetings.
` A letter from the Dutch authorities, which wastransmitted through Eurojust and which con-firmedthattheinformationprovidedinthiscasecouldbeusedasevidenceinjudicialproceedings,wasseenaswelcomesupportfortheongoingpro-ceedings in various participating States.
` Willingnesstoshareinformationbetweenthepar-ticipating States largely contributed to the impres-siveresultsofthecaseandwasseenasakeyfac-torinfuturecybercrimecases.
42 Eurojust casework
2.3 Eurojust’s partners
2.3.1 Cooperation partner: Europol
Eurojust and Europol continued their efforts tostrengthenthecooperationandexchangeofinforma-tion, aspredicated in their2009 Agreement and as foreseenintheLisbonTreaty,inwhichEurojust’sco-ordinationrole isbasedupon ‘informationsuppliedby Member States and Europol’.
Operational cooperation
Eurojust involved Europol in 44 cases and 98 coordi-nationmeetingsheldatEurojust.Thesignificantin-creaseinthenumberofEurojustcoordinationmeet-ings attended by Europol (75 in 2013) indicates that effortsundertakenbyEurojusttostrengthenopera-tionaltieshavemetwithsomesuccess.SucheffortsalsoincludedtheregularandmutualexchangeoflistsofoperationalmeetingsorganisedatEuropolandco-ordination meetings organised at Eurojust.
Inaddition,EurojustimplementedapolicytoguidetheprocessingofEuropol’srequests–providedviaSIENA–toperformthecross-checkingofpersonaldatarelatedto ongoing investigations against all data in the CMS. This policy was positively received by the JSB.
Eurojust contributed to the SOCTA Interim Assess-ment2015,SOCTAandTE-SAT,andactivelypartici-pated in the preparation and drafting of the 2014-2017 policy cycle MASP and OAPs. See Section 2.1.
Eurojust also followed Operation Archimedes in Sep-temberandattendedthedailybriefingsessionsatEu-ropol. Operation Archimedes was a large-scale, jointinternationallawenforcementoperationthattargetedseriousandorganisedcrimeintheEuropeanUnion,in-cludingTHB,drugtraffickingandfirearmstrafficking.
Eurojust signed one new association - with Focal Point Firearms - bringing the total number of suchassociations to 21. Procedures are ongoing for Eu-rojust’s association with the Focal Points related to terrorism,aswellasthenewFocalPointsTravellers,Sports Corruption and Asset Recovery.
Strategic cooperation
Eurojust and Europol representatives continued to hold regular meetings at working and manage-riallevel,inwhichtopicssuchastheuseofSIENA,
informationexchange,cooperationwithinEC3,co-operationwith Europol’s Counter-TerrorismUnit,JITsfundingandtheassociationwithFocalPointswereaddressed,aswellasthedraftEuropolregu-lation. In addition, Europol officials participatedin Eurojust strategic seminars, and Eurojust rep-resentatives attended the meetings of the Headsof EuropolNationalUnits. Several sessions of theEuropol-Eurojust staff exchangeprogrammewereheldin2014toinformparticipantsofthestructureandfunctionsandtoraiseawarenessoftheservi-ces provided by both organisations.
The 2013 Joint Annual Report (see Council doc. 11305/14) on cooperation between Eurojust and Eu-ropol was submitted to the Council and the Commis-sion on 24 June.
2.3.2 Cooperation partner: OLAF
Cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF is regulated by the PracticalAgreementonarrangementsofcooper-ationof2008.EurojustandOLAFcontinuedtocoop-erateinthefightagainstfraud,corruptionandothercrimes affecting the financial interests of the Euro-peanUnionandregularlyexchangedcasesummariesandthelistofEurojust-OLAFcommoncases.
Operational cooperation
EurojustandOLAFworkedjointlyonfourcasesandEurojust registered three additional cases related to cases already opened by OLAF in previous years. OLAF participated in three coordination meetings,which dealt with cases involving swindling, excisefraud, customs fraud and corruption. The slight in-crease in the number of cases and coordinationmeetings compared to 2013 (2 and1, respectively)indicatesthatthetwoagencies’cooperationbenefitsfromtheregularexchangeofoperationalinformation(casesummariesandlistofcommoncases).
Strategic cooperation
At the beginning of 2014, a bilateralmeeting be-tween the President of Eurojust and the DirectorofOLAFtookplace.Thismeetingprovidedanop-portunityfordiscussingpracticalcasesofcommoninterest and reaching a general agreement on the exchange of case summaries, as provided underPoint5ofthePracticalAgreement.
432014 Annual Report
Regular liaison team meetings continued in 2014. Thesemeetings serve as a platform for setting outand formalising the details of the exchange of casesummaries.They focuson theorganisationofaddi-tionaltrainingsessionsforOLAFinvestigators,basedonthepositivefeedbackreceivedafterthefirsttrain-ing session held in December 2013.
2.3.3 JHA Agencies cooperation
Two joint contributions have been published by the nineJHAAgencies(CEPOL,EASO,EIGE,EMCDDA,Eu-rojust, Europol, FRA,Frontex and eu-LISA): the new multiannual JHA Programme, Common general con-siderations by the JHA Agencies,whichidentifiedcross-cuttingissuesofcommoninterestandhowinter-agen-cycooperationcanassisttheeffectiveimplementationofthenewguidelines,waspublishedinFebruary(see
Eurojust and training
TheCouncilStrategicGuidelines,adoptedinJune,underlinetheneedtoenhancetrainingforprac-titionersandstressedtheimportanceoftrainingof,amongothers,prosecutors,judges,legalpracti-tionersandpoliceasacrucialcomponentoftheestablishmentofmutualtrust.
EurojustcontributedtotrainingthroughitsMoUswithCEPOL (2010) and the EJTN(2008).Inaddition,Eurojustorganisedthematicseminars,duringwhichpractitionerssharedexperienceandbestpractice.
CooperationbetweenEurojustandtheEJTNinthefieldofjudicialtrainingcontinued.Elevenprosecu-tors/judgesfromBulgaria(2),theCzechRepublic,Germany,Estonia,Spain,Hungary,Austria,Polandand Slovenia (2) participated in the long-term traineeship programme at Eurojust and were involved inthedailyworkoftheNationalDesksoftheircountryoforigin.InJuly,JudgePostulski,SecretaryGeneraloftheEJTN,visitedEurojust.EurojustandtheETJNagreedonthevaluablepracticalexperi-encegainedduringthethree-monthexchangeprogramme.EurojustandtheEJTNalsoformallyagreedonacommonunderstandingofshort-term(oneweek)studyvisitsandtheirreintroductionin2015.
Inaddition,membersoftheNationalDesksactivelyparticipatedinsixEJTNseminarswithintheframeworkof Criminal JusticeProject I, International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in Practice: EAW and MLA simulations.Thesesuccessfulseminars,whichtookplaceinGermany,Bul-garia,Cyprus,France,ItalyandSlovakia,arebasedontheprincipleof‘learningbydoing’.PracticalcaseexamplesareprovidedtoachieveahighdegreeofmutualtrustandconfidenceamongEuro-peanprosecutorsandjudges,andastrengtheningofthecommonjudicialculture,leadingtoamoreefficientadministrationofjusticeinEUcross-borderprosecutions.
WorkwasfinalisedwithCEPOLontheCommonCurriculumonEurojust.ThegoalofthistrainingmoduleisabetterunderstandingoftheaddedvalueofinvolvingEurojustincross-borderinvestigationsandop-erations,andthereforeclosercooperationbetweenjudicialauthoritiesandlawenforcementauthoritiesineffectivelycombatingseriouscross-bordercrime.Asinpreviousyears,cooperationwithCEPOLalsoledtotheorganisationofseveralonlineseminars(webinars).Eurojustcontributedto,amongothers,coursesonillegalimmigration,childprotection,mobileOPC,drugtrafficking,VATfraudandJITs.
Councildoc.7313/14).Asecondjointstatement,From strategic guidelines to actions: the contribution of the JHA Agencies to the practical development of the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU,wasreleasedinNovember and is available on Eurojust’s website. This second statement outlines Eurojust’s role and support intheimplementationofEUprioritiesandobjectivesintheAreaofFreedom,SecurityandJusticeintheEu-ropeanUnion.Thesedocumentshavebeensubmittedto the European Commission, the European Parlia-mentandtheCounciloftheEuropeanUnion.
Eurojust and the other JHA Agencies also contrib-uted to a public consultation with regard to the re-newed Internal Security Strategyfor2015-2020.ThefinalreportontheactivitiesoftheJHAAgenciesin2014 and its scorecard (see Council doc. 16286/14) were presented to the COSI in December. Eurojust
Main crime types involving third States
Criminal offences affecting the European Union’s financial interests
Swindling and fraud
Money laundering
Drug trafficking
Participation in a criminal organisation
Corruption
Crimes against life, limb or personal freedom
Cybercrime
Forgery of administrative/official documents
Organised robbery
76
55
29
24
15
14
10
9
8
7
44 Eurojust casework
continued its practice of exchanging itswork pro-gramme with the other JHA Agencies.
On3November,EurojustsignedanMoUwithFRA inthemarginsoftheannualmeetingoftheJusticeandHomeAffairsHeads of Agencies inMalta. AnMoUwasalsosignedwithEMCDDA on 15 July (see subsection 2.2.5).
2.3.4 Third States and organisations outside the European Union
Cooperation agreements
InJuly,Eurojustsignedacooperation agreement with theRepublicofMoldova,whichwillenterintoforcewhenthepartiesnotifyeachotherinwritingthatallinternal procedures have been completed. The con-clusionofacooperationagreementwithUkrainewasconfirmedasapriority.EurojustinformedtheCoun-cilof itsplanto institutenegotiationstoconcludeacooperation agreement with Montenegro.
Contacts were continued with a view to assessing the implementation of data protection legislation andexploringthepossibilityofinitiatingnegotiationsoncooperation agreements with Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina,Israel,SerbiaandTurkey.
Casework involving third States
Eurojust provided assistance in 208 cases in which third States were involved. The main crime types in these caseswereswindlingandfraud,moneylaundering,in-volvementofanorganisedcrimegroupanddrugtraf-ficking.ThemostfrequentlyinvolvedthirdStateswereSwitzerland, Norway and the USA. Third States wererepresented at 41 coordination meetings organised by Eurojust.Themost frequently involved thirdStates inEurojustcoordinationmeetingsweretheUSA(14),fol-lowedbySwitzerland(10),Norway(9)andUkraine(6).
Liaison Prosecutors at Eurojust
The presence of Liaison Prosecutors from NorwayandtheUSAatEurojusthasbeenconsideredbenefi-cial, as they facilitate judicial cooperation betweenthecompetentauthoritiesoftheMemberStatesandthe third States concerned. In 2014, Eurojust andSwitzerlandagreedon the secondmentof a LiaisonProsecutor to Eurojust, who will take up duties inMarch2015.TheLiaisonProsecutorforNorwayreg-istered52cases,mainlydealingwithdrugtrafficking,tax fraud and murder, organised one coordinationmeeting and participated in nine coordination meet-ings.TheLiaisonProsecutorfortheUSAparticipatedin 14 coordination meetings.
Top ten third States in Eurojust casework
General information No. cases
Total number of cases with third States 208
Total number of third States involved 53
Monaco
Switzerland
Norway
United States
Serbia
Ukraine
Liechtenstein
Turkey
Israel
Republic of Moldova
77
25
18
15
10
8
8
7
7
7
Cases by Liaison Prosecutors 2010 to 2014
Norway * Croatia (until 30/06/2013) USA Total
* Corrigendum: the figure provided (19 cases) in the 2013 Annual Report was incorrect
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
5255
46
6164
50
11
3
47
14
41
5
51*
4
52
452014 Annual Report
Eurojust contact points
Turkey
Ukraine
AlbaniaMontenegro
fYROM
SerbiaGeorgia
MoldovaBosnia-Herz.
Canada
USA
BrazilPeru
Argentina
Bolivia
Cape Verde
Tunisia
Egypt
Russian Federation
Kazakhstan
Iceland
India
Norway
Israel
Mongolia
Thailand
Singapore
Taiwan
JapanSouth Korea
LiechtensteinSwitzerland
EU Member States Liaison Prosecutors Third States
46 Eurojust casework
Eurojust contact points in third States
TheappointmentofEurojustcontactpointstothirdStates is a tool commonly used to improve coopera-tion between Member States and third States through Eurojust. Contact points are typically appointed by thirdStatesfromwithintheGeneralProsecutionOf-ficeor a local prosecutionoffice, national courts ortheMinistryof Justice,orholddiplomaticpositionsoutsidetheircountry.Atpresent,32thirdStateshaveappointed Eurojust contact points. In 2014, Boliviaand Peru were added to this network.
Support for external projects
Eurojust continued to support initiatives in the WesternBalkans,includingtheEU-fundedInterna-tionalPoliceAssociation(IPA)2010project,Fight against Organised Crime and Corruption: Strength-ening the Prosecutors’ Network, until theproject’sconclusion in April 2014. Under the umbrella ofthisproject,ameetingwasorganisedbetweenEu-rojustandEurojustcontactpoints fromtheWest-ernBalkanson20 January, and training for these
Meeting with Eurojust contact points and Liaison Prosecutors appointed
by Member States
On16and17October,Eurojustheldameet-ing with Eurojust contact points and Liai-son Prosecutors appointed by Member States. The objective of the meeting wastodiscuss complementarity, synergiesandcooperation by exchanging views on case examples, raising awarenessof the roleofEurojustincasesrelatedtothirdStates,in-cluding the exchange of information withthirdStates,andidentifyingpossiblemeth-odsofimprovingworkingmethodologies.
The meeting brought together 17 Eurojust contact points and 20 Liaison Prosecutors appointed by Member States. Eighteen third States were represented.
472014 Annual Report
newly appointed Eurojust contact points was held atEurojuston3April.Inaddition,Eurojustpartici-pated in several data protection training seminars in the Western Balkans.
EurojustwasalsoinvolvedintheprojectonfightingTHB in the Western Balkans by enhancing the use ofJITsatlocallevel,andtheregionalprojectofthe
International Organization for Migration, Strengthen-ing the fight against trafficking in persons and migrant smuggling in the Western Balkans. See sub-section 2.2.9.
EurojustcontributedtotheworkoftheEEASbypro-viding information on Eurojust’s cooperation at in-stitutional and operational level with the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner States.
Case illustration
In spring 2013, the Czech and US authorities contacted Swedish police regarding suspicions thatchildabusematerials(CAM)producedintheCzechRepublichadspreadtotheUSAandotherStatesthrough an intermediary in Sweden. Preliminary investigations were opened in Sweden regarding aggravatedchildpornographyandparticipationintheaggravatedsexualexploitationofchildrenforpornographic purposes. The Swedish investigation uncovered suspects in Sweden and Spain. In the CzechRepublic,thecriminalchargesfocusedonTHB.Withregardtothemodus operandi,itappearedthatthecustomersofthepornographicmaterialsorderedspecificcustom-madesetsofphotographsandvideos.PaymentsweremadebythecustomertotheintermediaryinSweden,whothentrans-ferredmoneytothephotographers.TheCAMwasthenexchangedinanencryptedformatusingcloudservices.Theencryptedcommunicationmethodsandsecurityawarenessofthesuspectsmeantthatclose judicialcooperationbetweenthenationalauthoritieswascrucial in identifyingpossiblemis-takesandweaknessesofthesuspectsintheplanningoftheircriminalactivities.
InconjunctionwithanoperationalmeetingorganisedatEuropoltoexchangepoliceinformation,a coordination meeting was convened at Eurojust that resulted in a JIT being established between SwedenandtheCzechRepublic,fundedbyEurojust.JointinvestigationsestablishedthattheCAMhadbeenspreadmorebroadly,includingtoSpain.JudicialcooperationwithSpainwasinitiatedbyissuingMLArequestsregardinganidentifiedsuspect.SpainsubsequentlyjoinedtheJIT,whichfa-cilitated cooperation with the other JIT members.
Aftersomeinitialsurveillanceandspecialinvestigativemeasures,includingtheanalysisoffinancialtransactionsbetweenthesuspects,ajointactiondaywasheldintheJITStatesaswellasintheUSAandFrance,whereadditionalsuspectshadbeenidentified.Eightpersonswerearrestedandasub-stantialamountofdatawasretrievedandsecured.Thejointactiondaywasfollowedbyalongperiodof investigations in theparticipatingStates thatwereobstructedbyencryptedharddisks and theunwillingnessofthesuspectstocooperate.AnumberofMLArequeststothirdStateswereissuedtoobtaininformationaboutthesuspects’useofcertaindigitalservices.
Severaladditionalcoordinationmeetingswereorganisedtofacilitatecooperationonactionscarriedout in the Member States and to hold discussions concerning which States were best placed to pros-ecutethesuspects.Duringthesemeetings,theprosecutingauthoritiesalsodiscussedhowtocollectthe evidence to support the upcoming trials in the various States in the best possible way.
Further analysis carried out by the national authorities during the investigations led to additional arrestsintheUK,theUSA,CanadaandRussia,andalargenumberofchildvictimsexploitedbythevariousphotographerswere identified.All involvedprosecutors and investigating judges agreedthatclosecooperationwithEurojustandEuropolwasthekeytothesuccessfulworkandtheresultsachievedattheinitialstagesofthecase.Thecaseisongoingandtrials,aswellasamoredetailedanalysisoftheresultsofthecase,areexpectedin2015.
Challenges and best practice
492014 Annual Report
3.1 Introduction
Asinpreviousyears,Eurojusthascontinuedtocon-tribute through its operational casework and strate-gic initiatives to the identificationofchallengesandbestpractice acrossawide spectrumof aspects re-garding judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
SuchaspectsmaybelinkedtotheexecutionofMLArequests,EAWs,freezingordersorotherinstrumentsgiving effect to the principle ofmutual recognition,and may also be identified in respect of a specificcrimetype,aspecialinvestigativetechnique,orinre-lation to cooperation with third States. The objective is to improve coordination and cooperation between the competent authorities of theMember States inthecontextofinvestigationandprosecutioninwhichEurojust is competent to assist.
This chapter deals with challenges and best practice identified in respect of controlled deliveries, NPS
Case illustration
In2013,Eurojust’ssupportwasrequestedinaTHBcaseinvolvingtheUKandSweden.AJITwases-tablishedinMarch2013foraperiodofoneyearandacoordinationmeetingwasheldinApril2013.ByAugust2014,thejudicialproceedingsintheUKwerejustbeginning,whilethetrialinSwedenhadbeenconcluded.Atthisstageofthecase,anothercoordinationmeetingwasheldatEurojusttoevalu-atethecooperationwithintheJITandtoexchangeinformation.OfparticularinterestweretheuseoftelephoneinterceptioninSwedenandthepossibilitiesofusingtheresultsasevidenceintheUK.
Thediscussionhighlightedexistingdifferences intherulesofcriminalprocedure.Telephoneinter-ceptionispermittedinSwedenbyacourtdecisionattherequestoftheprosecutor.Theinterceptedtelephonecallsaretranscribedandreportedtothecourt,andaresubsequentlyreadoutorplayedduringcourtproceedings.Ofadditionalimportanceinthiscasewasthedataretentionperiod.Attheconclusionofacase,materialthatwasnotusedinthepreliminaryinvestigationmustbedestroyed.Ingeneral,assoonasaninvestigationisclosed,theSwedishauthoritiesmustrevealtothedefence,inwriting,thetimeperiodandtelephonenumbersthatwereintercepted.
IntheUK,theuseoftelephoneinterceptioninevidenceisunusual.TheUKauthoritieswantedtoknowwhether the informationobtainedbySwedishauthorities throughtelephone interceptioncouldbeusedinevidenceinaUKcourt.ThecoordinationmeetingsatEurojustfacilitatedthediscussiononthisissue,andapossiblesolutionwassuggested:aSwedishpoliceorlegalrepresentativecouldgiveevi-dencebeforetheUKcourt.Thetestimonywouldconcernthefactthattheinterceptwaslegallyappliedforandlawfullyimplementedtechnically,ontheonehand,andthattherecordedmaterialsweretheresultofadulyauthorisedmeasure,ontheother.TheSwedishauthoritiesconsideredthisproposalaviablesolution.Whilenoconcretedecisionwasmade,thepossibilityandbenefitsoftheUKauthori-ties travelling to Sweden to view all the materials obtained through telephone interception were also reflectedupon.Bytheendof2014,thenecessitytoreviewthematerialswasstilltobediscussed.
3.2 Drug trafficking
In2014,thejudicialaspectsofcross-bordercontrolleddeliveries and cooperation in cases involving NPS and (pre)precursors constituted twoof the topics ofthe strategic project,Enhancing the work of Eurojust in Drug Trafficking Cases. Best practice and obstacles in judicial cooperation in these areas were gathered bymeansofquestionnairesaddressedtothecompe-tent authorities of all Member States. Responses tothe questionnaires were analysed and discussed with practitioners during Eurojust’s strategic meeting on drugtrafficking,heldon29and30September.Toallow
and(pre)precursors,andthegatheringandadmis-sibilityofevidenceincybercrimecases.
50 Challenges and best practice
their wide dissemination to practitioners in all Mem-berStates,theresultswereassembledinareport.
Controlled deliveries
Theanalysisanddiscussionshighlightedsignificantdifferencesbetweenthe legalsystemsof theMem-ber States regarding the authorisation and execu-tionofcontrolleddeliveries.Thesedifferencesoftenconstituteobstaclesinjudicialcooperation,particu-larlyinrelationto:(i)theauthorisationofcontrolleddeliverieswhentherouteortimingofthedrugcon-signmentisunknown;(ii)obtainingpermissionforplacingGPSdevices invehiclessuspectedof trans-porting drugs; (iii) the identification of competentauthorities in other Member States or in obtaining theirauthorisation;(iv)thesubstitutionofharmlesssubstances for illegaldrugs; (v) thepostponementofdrugseizures; (vi) thecross-borderdeploymentofundercoverofficers;(vii)theadmissibilityofevi-dencegatheredinthecontextofcontrolleddeliver-ies;(viii)theinvolvementofinformants;(ix)thede-ploymentofarmedpoliceofficersinotherMemberStates;and(x) thesharingofdeclassified informa-tiongatheredinthecontextofcontrolleddeliveries.Cooperation with third States in controlled deliver-iescanoftenbeproblematic,andexperienceintheuseofcontrolleddeliverieswithinJITsislimited.
Solutions to address these problems included in-creased communication and mutual trust between the competent authorities of the Member States;harmonisation of legislation on controlled deliver-ies;mappingthecompetentauthoritiesandclarify-ing the legal requirements on controlled deliveries inallMemberStates;gatheringreflectionsonauni-fied set of requirements for controlled deliveries;increased involvement of Eurojust and Europol incross-border operations, particularly in organisingoperational meetings and coordination meetings; identificationofcontactpointsforcontrolleddeliv-eriesintheMemberStates;analysisofinformation;andlegal,tacticalandtechnicalsupport.
Issue in focus 1ofthereportwillincludeinformationonwhetheranMLArequestisapre-conditionfortheauthorisationofcontrolleddeliveriesintheMemberStates,andwillcontainalistofcompetentauthoritiesand,whereappropriate,centralcontactpointsforau-thorising controlled deliveries in the Member States.
NPS and (pre)precursors
TheanalysisofdrugtraffickingcasesreferredtoEu-rojustledtotheidentificationofseriouschallenges
intheprosecutionofsyntheticdrugcasesinvolvingNPS and (pre)precursors, particularly when thesesubstances are not regulated at EU/internationallevel.Inthesecases, legislationandapproachesof-tendiffer across theMemberStates, leading to re-peated judicial cooperation issues.
Furtherspecificdifficultiesencounteredbytheprac-titioners replying toEurojust’s questionnaire refertothe identificationofnewsubstances, therelatedlackofknowledge,andtechnicalcapacity.
The respondents to the questionnaire identifiedpossible approaches to a situation in which one particular substance is not foreseenby legislationasbeingadrugprecursor,butanindicationispre-sent that the substance is being produced or im-ported to prepare (synthetic) drugs. In such situa-tion,prosecutionisstillpossibleinseveralMemberStates,eitheronthebasisoftheso-called‘analogyapproach’orbyconsideringtheproductionofthesesubstances as a ‘preparatory act’ to the commission ofdrugproductionoffences.
WithregardtoNPS,insomeMemberStates,prosecu-tion is based on medical laws. Additional possibilities for prosecution were explored during a dedicatedworkshopatthestrategicmeeting,includingtheuseofadministrativelaws(e.g.withdrawingpermitsforshops),consumerlegislation,andfoodsafetylegisla-tion.Examplesofbestpracticewerealsomentioned,such as including NPS on a temporary list for onemonthandofficially listing it following this testpe-riod. Several participants highlighted the importance of sharing expertise across States (e.g. forensic re-ports and judgements).
Issue in focus 2ofthereportwillincludeinformationon recent judgements and an overview of nationalprovisions and approaches to NPS and (pre)precur-sors in Member States.
Furthermore,difficultiesencounteredbynationalau-thorities in prosecuting cases involving non-regulated drug precursors were highlighted during the 8th meet-ingoftheConsultativeForum.Awarenesswasraisedby one Forum member of the threat posed by thespreadingwithinEuropeofaparticularnon-regulateddrugprecursorfoundtobeusedonalargescaleforthemanufactureofmethamphetamine inaMemberState.At thesametime,arequestwasaddressedtoall Consultative Forum members to support the ini-tiativeoflistingthisdrugprecursorinthecategoryofscheduled substances stipulatedby the relevantEUlegalframeworkondrugprecursors.
512014 Annual Report
3.3 Cybercrime
Gathering and admissibility of evidence in cybercrime cases
Regardingtheadmissibilityofevidencegatheredbythe private sector, or by special investigativemeas-uresnotpermittedinagivenMemberState,theneedto distinguish between intelligence and evidence stricto sensu needs to be taken into account: intelli-gencecanbeusedtostartinvestigations,butnotnec-essarily as evidence in court.
Trans-border access to data may pose difficultiesin the investigationandprosecutionof cybercrimecases,particularlybecause thepractice inMemberStates varies greatly (also in connection with the non-uniform implementation of the Council of Eu-ropeConventiononCybercrimeETSNo.185,Cyber-crimeConvention).Somerequireacourtorder,andsomerequireanMLArequest,asinformationwouldbe stored on a server in another State. The question ofjurisdictionifinformationisstored‘inthecloud’wasalsoidentified.
Toovercomethesedifficulties,anextensiveinterpre-tationofavailablelegislationcouldassist,inthesensethatjurisdictioncouldbeexertedonthebasisofthephysical locationofthedevicefromwhichaccesstorelevant data is facilitated. Different approaches inthe Member States regarding the judicial instruments used to gather evidence stored on a computer can also be observed, because in some Member Statesthiswouldbepartofahousesearch,whichwould,insomecases,requireacourtorder.
Fragmentation can also be observed regarding how prosecutors would gather information contained ina ‘chat’: again, different approaches are followed intheMemberStates,assomewouldconsiderreferringto the law governing telecommunications and would needtorelyonacourtorder,whileotherswouldre-quiretheinterventionofprosecutors(andnotneces-sarilyajudge).Ingeneral,thepracticeofdirectcontact,
andthespontaneousexchangeofinformationbetweencompetentauthoritiesinparticular(asprovidedforinArticle26oftheCybercrimeConvention),canbeveryusefulinaddressingandclarifyingthesedifficulties.
Challenges might also arise when private companies areinpossessionofcontentdata,particularlyasthecompany’sheadquartersareoftenlocatedinathirdState.Thistypicallyrequires lengthyproceduresforthegatheringofrelevantinformation,whichinturnhamperstheinvestigationandprosecutionofcyber-crimecases,particularlyinconnectionwiththevola-tility of suchdata. In these circumstances, having asinglepointofcontactforcommunicationwiththesecompaniesinaMemberStatemayfacilitatecoopera-tion.Inaddition,itcanbeveryusefulifacompany’sheadquartersinathirdStateofficiallyauthorisesitsbranches in Member States to respond directly to re-quests issuedbyprosecutors.Becauseof their verynature - and the crucial role private companies have - authorities should always consider putting in place a multidisciplinary approach to the investigation and prosecutionofcybercrimecases.
TheusefulnessofJITs,especiallyifsetupfromanear-lystageofaninvestigation,hasbeennoted,togetherwiththeneedtoinvolveprosecutorsfromthebegin-ningofeachcase,especially ifseizuresareatstake,andtofacilitatetheadmissibilityofevidenceincourt.Similarly,Eurojust can supportnational authorities,particularlywheninvolvedatanearlystageofthein-vestigation,forexamplewheninvestigationsinotherMemberStatesoreventhirdStatesaretobeinitiated,and to support the national authorities of MemberStates in coordinating parallel investigations.
The gathering and admissibility of evidence in cy-bercrime cases was also among the topics discussed withpractitionersfromtheMemberStatesduringtheEurojustseminar,Cybercrime: rising to the challenges of the 21st century,heldon19and20November.See also subsection 2.2.6.
Eurojust focus of the year: the European Arrest Warrant
532014 Annual Report
T hatthesubjectofEurojust’sfocusoftheyearisthe EAW is no coincidence. In 2014, Eurojustcontinuedtocontribute,bothatoperationaland
strategic level, to a swifter application of this instru-ment,whichgiveseffecttotheprincipleofmutualrec-ognition.ThefunctioningoftheEAWwasalsothesub-jectofreflectionatEUlevelin2014.Eurojustsoughttomarkapproximately10yearsofitsapplicationandcon-tributedtothedebatebyholdingastrategicseminar,incooperationwiththeHellenicEUPresidency,entitledThe European Arrest Warrant: which way forward?
In 2014, 266 cases concerning the improvement ofthe execution of EAWswere registered at Eurojust,amountingto14.5percentofallcases.TheUKDeskmade the greatest number of requests, followedbythePolishandBulgarianDesks.TheUKDeskalsore-ceivedthegreatestnumberofrequests, followedbythe Italian and Spanish Desks.
The College dealt with two general issues related to the applicationoftheEAW.ThefirstissuewaslinkedtotheapplicationofArticle3(2)CouncilFrameworkDecision2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant (FD ontheEAW)(groundsformandatorynon-executionoftheEAW).The issue concerned the gatheringof legalandpractical informationon the consequencesof thenon-removalofawarrantfromtheSchengenInforma-tion System (SIS) II and INTERPOL databases in a case in which a person subject to an EAW or extradition re-questwasfinallydealtwithincriminalproceedingsonthesamefactualbasisinanotherMemberState.
The second general issue concerned the gathering ofpracticaland legal informationonthe implemen-tation intheMemberStatesofArticle24FDontheEAW (postponedor conditional surrender), namelywhether this provision has been fully implementedand,ifso,theconditionsthathavebeenimposedbythe Member States’ judicial authorities in allowing such ‘temporary surrender’ to take place.
Eurojust continued to play a key role in improving cooperation in criminal matters between Member States (Article 3(1)(b) of the Eurojust Decision),particularlyby:i)facilitatingtheexecutionofEAWsandtheexchangeofinformationbetweennationalauthorities;ii)establishinglinesofcommunicationbetween national authorities with a view to clari-fying diverging applications at national level ofprovisionsoftheFDontheEAW;iii)clarifyingthelegal requirements of both issuing and executingauthorities; iv) advising on the drafting of EAWsbothbeforetheirissuanceandatthetimeoftheirredrafting; and v) coordinating the issuance and
executionofEAWsandcontributingtothepreven-tionofpossibleconflictsofjurisdiction.
SomeofthelegalandpracticalissuesencounteredbyEurojust in its EAW casework in 2014 concerned:
i) difficultieslinkedtodifferinginterpretationsandpractical application of the speciality rule (Arti-cle27,paragraphs2,3(g)and4FDontheEAW)incases inwhich, further toa surrender, a thirdMember State requests the issuing Member State tohearthesurrenderedperson,andthisrequestis refused on the basis that consent for carry-ing out this ‘interview of the suspect’ should besought from the executing Member State, whileforthethirdMemberStatethe‘interviewing’ofasuspectdoesnotamountto‘prosecution’,andthusconsent is not considered to be required;
ii) additional issues associated with the speciality rule (Article27(4)FDon theEAW) in cases inwhich,furthertoasurrender,theissuingMemberStatere-queststheconsentoftheexecutingMemberStateunder Article 27(4) FD on the EAW to enable the formertourgentlyserve(timebarwasapproach-ing) an indictment on the surrendered person on a separateunrelatedoffenceandbeallowedtocom-mit that person to trial on that separate charge; consenthavingbeenrefused,discussionsareongo-ing with a view to ascertaining the means at the dis-posaloftheissuingMemberStatetoenableatleastthesuspensionofthetimebarforprosecution;
iii)issueslinkedtotherequirementunderthelawofsome Member States to hear the requested person beforetheycanissueanEAW,andthedifficultiesarisingwhenthelocationofthepersonisknownby both the Member State running the investiga-tion and the Member State in which the person is located but cannot yet be arrested;
iv)different interpretations of the type of guaranteeforeseenunderArticle5(3)FDontheEAW(returnof person to executingMember State to serve thesentence imposed in the issuing Member State) re-quiredbytheexecutingMemberState,andarelateddispute over which Member State (issuing or execut-ing)shouldsubsequentlybearthecostofthereturnaftertrial(differentviewsonpossibleapplicablele-galbasis:FDontheEAW,CouncilFrameworkDeci-sion2008/909/JHAontheapplicationoftheprinci-pleofmutualrecognitiontojudgementsincriminalmatters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose oftheirenforcementintheEuropeanUnion);
54 Eurojust focus of the year: the European Arrest Warrant
v) issueslinkedtowithdrawalofanEAWiftherea-sons for thewithdrawalarenotclear to theex-ecutingMemberStateandsubstantialeffortsandresources have already been put into the execu-tionoftheEAW;
vi) proportionalityissuearisinginanEAWissuedforretrialconcerningaminoroffence;and
vii)issueslinkedtoprotectionoffundamentalrights,namely whether prison conditions are suitable for a person suffering frommental illness, andthepreparednessoftheissuingMemberStatetoprovideadditionalinformationconcerningguar-antees relating to prison conditions.
Eurojust has also continued to develop its assistance to Member States in relation to competing EAWs (Article 16(2)FDontheEAW).Underthisprovision,Eurojustmay be requested by the executing judicial authorities toprovideadviceontheplaceofsurrenderofapersonwhoisthesubjectofEAWsissuedbytwoormoreMem-berStates.In2014,Eurojustwasformallyrequestedtoprovidesuchadviceinfourcases.Eurojustprovidedad-viceandexpertiseatanearlystage,eitherthroughne-gotiation or direct contact with the concerned authori-ties at Eurojust coordination meetings. Coordination meetingsprovideavitalvenueastheyallowfordiscus-sionofthestateofplayandexistingproblemsinacaseandagreementonstrategy,suchasthepriorityofEAWsand,intheeventofparallelinvestigationsandprosecu-tionsforthesameconduct,agreementsreachedtopre-vent ne bis in idemandconflictsofjurisdiction.
WithregardtobreachesoftimelimitsintheexecutionofEAWs,Article17(7)FDontheEAWprovidesthat,inexceptionalcircumstances,ifaMemberStatecannotob-servethetimelimitsprovidedforinArticle17,itshallinformEurojustandprovidethereasonsforthedelay.In2014,123breachesoftimelimitswereregisteredatEu-rojust.Sixofthesecasesrequiredfurtheraction.Forthefifthconsecutiveyear,Irelandreportedthelargestnum-berofbreaches.OthercaseswerereferredbytheCzechRepublic,Spain,Latvia,Bulgaria,Croatia,andtheUK.
Eurojust produced a Report on Eurojust’s casework in the field of the EAW covering the period 2007-2013. TheReportwas addressed to the Council oftheEuropeanUnionandtheEuropeanCommission,andtouchedupontheroleofEurojustinthefieldoftheEAW,bothatoperationalandstrategiclevel,andthepracticalandlegalissuesidentifiedbyEurojustintheapplicationoftheEAW,namelypertainingtothescopeandcontentoftheEAW,groundsfornon-recognition and guarantees, surrender procedure,
andeffectsofsurrender(see Council doc. 10269/14). Eurojust also produced a Note on Notifications to Euro-just of breaches of time limits in the execution of EAWs (Article17(7)(firstsentence)FDontheEAW).TheNotewasaddressedtotheCounciloftheEuropeanUnionandthe European Commission (see Council doc. 10270/14). On the basis of the experience of Eurojust’s NationalDesksinrelationtothereportingofsuchbreachesbynationalauthorities,theNotetouchesupontheservicesthat Eurojust can provide at operational and strategic level to encourage compliance by the Member States withtheirobligationtoinformEurojustofsuchbreach-esandthereasonstherefore,anditaddressesthemainissuesidentifiedconcerningthesenotifications.
Strategic seminar on the EAW
On10June,Eurojustorganised,incoopera-tionwiththeHellenicPresidencyoftheEU,a strategic seminar entitled The European Arrest Warrant: Which way forward?,incom-bination with the 7th meeting of the Con-sultative Forum that was held on 11 June by the Prosecutor General of Greece with thesupportofEurojust.Thegoaloftheseminarwas to encourage judicial practitioners to ex-change views on problems and best practice associated with the operation of the EAW,taking intoaccountEurojust’s role in facili-tatingtheswiftimplementationandsmoothoperationof theEAW.Participants fromallMemberStates,EUinstitutionsandEurojustattended the combined event.
Theconclusionsofthefourworkshopsheldduring the seminar on the EAW: i) scope andcontentoftheEAW;ii)groundsfornon-recognition and guarantees; iii) surrender procedure;andiv)effectsofthesurrender,were presented during the Consultative Fo-rummeeting on 11 June, and served as abasisforfurtherdiscussionbyConsultativeForum members. The Consultative Forum members’ general conclusions on the EAW were that i) the EAW is a model instrument for the EU’s criminal justice area, greatlycontributes to the establishment of anAreaofFreedom,SecurityandJustice,andshouldserveasanexampleforothermutu-al recognition instruments; and ii) despite
552014 Annual Report
anoverallpositiveassessmentof theEAW, its functioningcanstillbe improved,andtheproblemsthatwereaddressedintheworkshopswillbebettertackledbywayofsoftlawinstrumentsandthedevelopmentofpracticaltoolsratherthanbywayoflegislativechanges.
ConcerningtheroleofEurojust,ConsultativeForummembersconcludedthatEurojusthasplayed,andshouldcontinue toplay,apivotal role in theapplicationof theEAW,by i) improvingmutualunder-standingofMemberStates’legalsystemsandstimulatingandfacilitatingconsultationbetweenMem-berStates;ii)coordinatingandprovidingnationalauthoritieswithrelevantlegalinformation;andiii)providingassistanceinthetranslationofEAWs.AnotherconclusionwasthatEurojust’sroleasacentreoflegalandpracticalexpertiseinthefieldoftheEAWshouldbeenhanced.
EurojusthasalsodevelopedusefulinstrumentsthatcanhelppractitionersincomplexEAWcases,e.g.theEurojustGuidelines forDecidingonCompetingEAWs (published in theEurojust Annual Report 2004),andwillcontinuetoprovideupdatedinformationonEuropeancaselaw,constitutionalissuesandrecurringpracticalproblemsrelatedtotheapplicationoftheEAW.
The reportoftheseminarandtheconclusionsofthe7thmeetingoftheConsultativeForum were pub-lished on Eurojust’s website and as Council doc. 13581/14.
Case illustration
ItalyissuedanEAWforaTunisiannationalwhohadpreviouslybeensentencedinacaseconcerningthetraffickingofdrugsin2009and2010.TheindividualwasarrestedanddetainedatanairportinBelgiuminMarch2014.Afterthearrest,BelgiumreceivedanotherEAW,issuedbyLuxembourg.ThisEAWwasissuedwithintheframeworkofaninvestigationintodrugtrafficking,includingheroin,cocaineandcan-nabis,in2013and2014.TheBelgianDeskatEurojustwasrequestedtoprovideassistanceregardingthequestionofwhichofthetwoconflictingEAWswastobegivenpriorityinthissituation,andacasewasopened towards Italy and Luxembourg. The question had to be answered bearing in mind that the sub-jectoftheItalianEAWhadbeenconvictedinItalyandthedecisionhadbecomefinal,andthattheLux-embourg authorities had reason to believe that this individual headed a criminal organisation set up to sell drugs. Not surrendering this suspect to Luxembourg was believed to have the potential to harm the investigationandtobeimportantindeterminingtherolesofallpersonsinvolvedinthisorganisation.
AformalrequestfromtheBelgianprosecutingauthoritieswassenttoEurojustonthebasisofArticle16(2)FDontheEAW.ALevelIImeetingwasheldbetweentheBelgian,ItalianandLuxembourgNationalDesks,andEurojustwasrequestedtoprovideadviceontheprioritytobegiventooneoftheEAWs.Thelegalassistancewasofanurgentnature,astheBelgiancourtdecisionregardingtheItalianEAWwasduewithindaysofreceivingtherequest,andaEurojustopiniononconcurrentEAWswasdulyissued.Onthebasisofthefactsofthiscase,Eurojust’srecommendedthattherequestedpersonshouldbesurrenderedfirsttoLuxembourg.Subsequently,therequestedpersoncouldbesurrenderedbyLuxembourgtoItalyfortheexecutionofthecustodialsentence,onthebasisofArticle28FDontheEAW.
TheCourtofFirstInstanceofBrussels,aswellastheCourtofAppeal,gaveprioritytotheEAWissuedbytheLuxembourgauthorities.EurojustprovidedfurthersupportinthecasebyfacilitatingtheItalianEAW that was sent to the Luxembourg authorities to ensure that the requested person could be sur-renderedfromLuxembourgtoItaly.
EAW Strategic Seminar, 10 June 2014
Freezing & Confiscation Strategic Seminar, 11 December 2014
Eurojust’s Administration
59 Eurojust’s Administration
Support for operational and strategic work Eurojust’s Administration supports thework of theCollegeandManagementBoardofEurojust.In2014,28operationalmeetingsoftheCollegeand10Man-agementBoardmeetingswereheld.Bytheendoftheyear,theworkforceofEurojustconsistedofapproxi-mately 260 post-holders.
Support is given to the National Desks in dealing withcases,and inpreparingandrunningcoordina-tionmeetingsandcoordinationcentres,includingbyproviding preliminary case notes, other case notesoranalysis reports, coordination centredocuments,analysisof judgements,aswellas legal information,opinions and advice on the application of judicialcooperation instruments. In2014,supportwasalsoprovided in drafting the first chapters of the Op-erationsManualandtheGuidelinesonmanualfiles,which were adopted by the College with a view to en-hancing and harmonising Eurojust’s internal practice intheareaofoperationalwork.
Furthermore, the Administration provides directsupport in the running of Eurojust’s strategic pro-jects, suchas thoseenhancing theworkofEurojustindrugtraffickingcasesortheTHBstrategicproject.The Administration supports the College in the plan-ning,conceptionandrunningofEurojust’sstrategicseminars,meetingsandtacticalmeetings,aswellasthe biannual meetings of the Consultative Forum.Support is also delivered by providing expert advice to EU stakeholders and institutions, including withregardtotheEUPolicyCycle.
Inaddition,theAdministrationsupportstheCollegein activities to strengthen Eurojust’s cooperation with JHApartners,thirdStatesandinternationalorganisa-tions. Support is alsoprovided in relation to futureEurojustdevelopments: in2014,theAdministrationassisted the College with monitoring and analysing ongoingnegotiationson thedraftEurojust,EuropolandEPPORegulationsandwiththepreparationofre-lated Eurojust opinions and contributions.
Budget and staff
Eurojust’s budget for 2014 was EUR 33.6 million.Financialperformancehasbuiltonthesteadilyim-proving trendwithanaveragebudgetexecutionof98.0percentoverthe last fouryears. In2014,Eu-rojustachievedabudgetexecutionrateof99.8percent. In accordance with the budgetary authority’s requirementtoreducepostsby5percent,Eurojustidentifiedfourvacantpoststhatweredesignatedfor
Klaus Rackwitz,Administrative Director Alfredo García Miravete,Operational Support
Mike Moulder,Budget, Finance & Procurement Alinde Verhaag,CaseAnalysis
Diana Alonso Blas,Data Protection Ulf Bergström,Press&PR
Carla Garcia Bello,College Secretariat Ola Löfgren,EJN Secretariat
Matevž Pezdirc,Genocide Network Secretariat Vincent Jamin,JITs Network Secretariat
Jacques Vos,Corporate Services Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos,Human Resources
Jon Broughton,Information Management Catherine Deboyser,Legal Service
602014 Annual Report
thispurposein2014,inlinewiththeorganisation’sstrategy not to terminate present employment con-tracts to achieve such reductions.
College and Management Board
TheCollegecarriedoutaninternalevaluationoftheimplementationofthemeasuresadoptedin2013toenhancetheefficiencyandeffectivenessof itswork.Theassessmentwaspositive:thenumberofCollegeplenary meetings was reduced and the time devot-ed to Management Board matters substantially de-creased; and planning of College activities, the useofpreparatoryconsultationprocedures forallowingwrittenopinionstobeexpressedandtheuseofwrit-ten decision-making procedures were improved.
Eurojust’s new premises
Work on Eurojust’s new premises progressed in 2014,with the conclusionof the ‘Build andMain-tain’ contract, running over 15 years (plus fiveyears’extension).Thefourthquartersawthefirstwork on the ground being realised and the interior design project launched internally with the involve-mentofallEurojustpost-holders.
Consolidated Annual Activity Report
The Administrative Director’s Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2014, being prepared at the timeof publication of this annual report, contains addi-tional detailed information on the Administration’sachievements through the implementationofEuro-just’s Annual Work Programme (AWP) 2014 (availa-bleonEurojust’swebsite),managementandinternalcontrolsystems,withafocusonresultsachievedbyimplementing the objectives and activities planned intheAWP,aswellasontheusemadeofthehumanandfinancialresourcesallocatedthereto.
External communication
Eurojust introduced a new approach to communica-tionstobetterpromotetheactivitiesofEurojust,fo-cusing on six areas: i) corporate communications and identity, i.e.branding,marketingandpositioning; ii)external andEU relations; iii) expandingmedia im-pact and coverage across Europe; iv) strengthening Eurojust’s digital communications; v) publications,i.e. studies, reports and brochures; and vi) internalcommunications. The new approach included placing twonewsectionsonline,In Focus and Success Stories,
Media coverage worldwide
Website visits
2000
0
4000
6000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2013
2014
100000
0
200000
300000
400000
A sample of Eurojust products
61 Eurojust’s Administration
to promote and repackage key stories over a longer periodoftime.Eurojustregularlypublishespressre-leases on its operational work, and news items arepublished on its ongoing non-operational activities. Toraiseawarenessoftheseactivities,thenumberofnews items increased substantially in 2014.
In addition, Eurojust launched marketing seminarsand roadshows in the Member States. The market-ing seminars are more practical in nature than road-shows,astheydealingreaterdepthwithEurojust’scaseworkandhowEurojustcanassistpractitioners,whileroadshowsprovideamoregeneraloverviewofEurojust’s work. Marketing seminars and roadshows arepartoftheongoingEurojustinitiativetohighlighttheworkof Eurojust andmakepractitioners in theMemberStatesawareofthevalueandefficiencythatEurojust brings to cross-border cases.
Astrongprofile increases trust, credibility and rec-ognition, and is a precondition for relations withstakeholders,includingpractitioners.In2014,5619mediaarticlesmentioningEurojustwerepublished,compared to 3 982 articles the previous year.
Throughout 2014, Eurojust produced strategic re-ports,Eurojust News and corporate brochures. Euro-just’s publications are made available on the website.
Eurojust and practitioner networks
632014 Annual Report
Eurojust hosts the Secretariats of the EJN, JITsNetworkandGenocideNetwork,andfacilitatesinteraction between the National Desks and the
Networks in their common core business. The Secre-tariatsdrawontheadministrativeresourcesofEuro-just toofferservices to theNetworks.EurojustalsosupportstheactivitiesoftheConsultativeForum.
TrainingTheEJNSecretariatorganisedthefifthEng-lish language training session for the EJN ContactPointstoexpandknowledgeofthedifferentlegalsys-tems,tobuildcommonlanguageskills,toestablishandmaintain closer relations and enhance mutual trust.
e-Justice Portal The EJN website will be integrated inthee-JusticePortal,thefutureelectronicinterfaceintheAreaofFreedom,SecurityandJustice.
6.1 EJN
The EJNisanetworkofContactPointsforthefacilita-tionof judicial cooperation in criminalmatters andwas established in 1998. The Secretariat was set up in 2003 at Eurojust.
MeetingsTwoplenarymeetingstookplacein2014,inJune in Athens on the EAW and in November in Rome oncooperationwiththirdStates.Forthefirsttime,theplenary meetings were organised directly by the EJN Secretariat, incollaborationwiththeEUPresidenciesandwiththesupportofEurojust.Inaddition,regionalmeetingswereheld inAustria, Finland,HungaryandSlovenia,andnationalmeetingswereheldinBelgium,GermanyandRomania, todiscussandimproveinter-national judicial cooperation regarding issues of re-gionalornationalcharacter.Representativesfromtheinvolved National Desks participated in these meetings.
Joint EJN/Eurojust paper The EJN and Eurojust ap-proved the joint paper,Assistance in International Co-operation in Criminal Matters for Practitioners,outlin-ingforjudicialpractitionersintheMemberStatestheservices and assistance that can be provided by the EJNandEurojust.Oneof the objectives of the jointpaper is to ensure that the EJN and Eurojust deal with casesfallingwithintheirrespectivecompetences.ThepaperwillbeavailableinallofficialEUlanguages.
EJN Trio Presidency The Member State currently holding the EU Presidency, assisted by the two in-coming EU Presidencies (the EJN Trio Presidency),work in close cooperation with the EJN Secretariat. To strengthen the privileged relationship between theEJNandEurojust,theEJNTrioPresidencyandtheEJN Secretariat met in December with the Eurojust Presidency and the Administrative Director to ex-changeviewsanddiscussareasofcommoninterest.
EJN website The Judicial Atlas is being developed to include the competent authorities for all mutual rec-ognition instruments regarding judicial cooperation in criminalmattersaswellastraditionalrequestsforMLA.
6.2 JITs Network
The JITs Network is a network of national contactpointsestablishedtofostertheexchangeofinforma-tion and best practice between Member States on JITS. It celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2014. The Secretariat was set up in January 2011 at Eurojust.
Annual meeting The10thannualmeetingofJITsNa-tionalExpertstookplaceon25and26June.Thefo-cusofthismeetingwasonthelatestdevelopmentsinJITs,suchasthedevelopmentofJITswiththirdStates.
Projects Several projects were initiated to enhance sup-porttoJITpractitioners,suchastheFiches Espagnoles,intended to collect and make available to practitioners summaries of the national legislation of theMemberStates that are relevant to the setting up and operation ofJITs.ToensurethehomogeneityofthecontentoftheFiches,astandardtemplatewasdevelopedandthefirstfournational summaries, coveringSpanish,Bulgarian,Belgian andSwedish legislation,were released inDe-cember via the JITs Network restricted area on Euro-just’swebsite.Atthe9thannualmeeting,theprojectontheJITsevaluationformwasadoptedtosupportpracti-tionersinassessingtheperformanceofJITs.Aninterac-tiveversionoftheformwasmadeavailableinApril.Thefirstcompletedevaluationshavebeenreceivedandarebeinganalysed.Thegoalsoftheproject–whichwillbesupportedbythesettingupofadatabase–aretopro-videbetter insight into JITpracticeatEU levelandtocontributetotheoverallassessmentofthetool.
TrainingTheJITsNetworkplaysasignificantroleinpromotingJITsandidentifyingnewtrendsinJITco-operation. Participation in training organised inside andoutsidetheEuropeanUnionisbased,inparticu-lar, on the successful partnerships establishedwithCEPOL and the EJTN.
JITs Network restricted area The JITs Network re-strictedareaisawebplatformoperatingasasingle
64 Eurojust and practitioner networks
repository for JIT-related information, particularlyonJITlegislationandevaluation.In2014,itwasre-vamped to increase its user friendliness and to im-provetheaccessibilityoftheinformation.
JITs funding A new procedure for JITs funding was implemented to improve the efficiency of grants forpractitioners(e.g.throughthesimplificationofforms,greaterflexibilityintheimplementationoftheawardsandthecoverageofcostsincurredbythirdStates).Thepreparationofanewapplicationform,whichincludesautomatic calculations and control ofmonetary ceil-ings,wascompletedat theendof2014.ThefundingofJITactivitieshasbeencoveredbyEurojust’sbudgetsince September 2013. The JITs Network Secretariat received and processed 146 new applications, con-firmingtheconsiderablelevelofinterestofpractition-ersandtheusefulnessofthisfundingprogramme.
bating impunity, holding perpetrators to accountand delivering justice to victims.
Training The Genocide Network Secretariat, in co-operationwithcivilsociety,heldasecondseminarinOctober on the rights of victims of serious interna-tional crimes in theMemberStates.Theobjectiveofthe seminar was to share best practice and expertise withnationalauthoritiesonvariousaspectsofvictims’rights,includingtherighttoparticipation,protection,supportandreparation.RepresentativesfromtheNa-tionalDesksofEurojustparticipatedintheseminar.
6.3 Genocide Network
The Genocide Network was established in 2002 to ensure close cooperation between the national au-thorities in investigating and prosecuting these crimes. The Genocide Network Secretariat was set up in July 2011 at Eurojust.
Annual meetings Eurojust hosted the 16th and 17th meetingsoftheGenocideNetwork.Themeetingspro-videauniqueforumforpractitionerstoexchangein-formation,bestpracticeandexperience,andthusco-operate and assist each other in the investigation and prosecutionofgenocide,crimesagainsthumanityandwarcrimes.Themaintopicsofthemeetingsincludedsexual and gender-based crimes, financial investiga-tionsandassetrecoveryinatrocitycrimes,aswellastheimplicationsoftheongoingconflictinSyria.
Strategy paper To strengthen the investigation and prosecution of international crimes, the GenocideNetwork published the Strategy of the EU Genocide Network to combat impunity for the crime of geno-cide, crimes against humanity and war crimes within the European Union and its Member States,whichisavailable on Eurojust’s website The Strategy out-lines linkageof thesecrimeswithEUterritoryandmentions the challenges facing investigators andprosecutorsduetothespecificcontext,natureandlegal framework of international crimes. Further-more, thedocumentprovidesa comprehensive setofmeasuresthatEUinstitutionsandMemberStatesshould take to support national authorities in com-
6.4 Consultative Forum
In2010,theConsultativeForumofProsecutorsGen-eralandDirectorsofPublicProsecutionsoftheMem-ber States of the EuropeanUnion (the ConsultativeForum) was established to reinforce internationaljudicialcooperationandmutualtrust,toshareexpe-rience,andtoprovideexpertinputtotheEUinstitu-tions for the development of the Area of Freedom,Security and Justice. Eurojust continued to provide legal,administrativeandfinancialsupporttotheac-tivitiesoftheConsultativeForum.
The Consultative Forumheldits7thand8thmeetings,supported by Eurojust, in 2014. Themeeting in JuneundertheHellenicEUPresidencywasheldincombina-tionwiththeEurojuststrategicseminar,The European Arrest Warrant: Which way forward? The Consultative Forum reached conclusions on legal and practical solu-tionsleadingtoimprovementsintheimplementationoftheEAWandthefightagainstcorruption.Theoutcome ofthemeeting and the conclusionsoftheConsultativeForum are available on Eurojust’s website, and weretransmittedtotherelevantEUinstitutionstocontributetothedebateatEUlevel(see Council doc. 13581/14).
During the meeting in December under the Italian Presidency, the Consultative Forum discussed thefreezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crimeand how to improve mutual recognition. Challenges and best practice in investigating and prosecuting casesofTHBandillegalimmigrantsmugglinginvolv-ing migration by sea were also discussed. This meet-ing was organised in combination with the Eurojust strategic seminar, Towards Greater Cooperation in Freezing and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime: a Practitioners’ Approach. The outcome and conclu-sions reached by the Consultative Forum will be sub-mittedtotherelevantEUinstitutionsinearly2015.
Meetings of the Consultative Forum
Evaluation and future perspectives
672014 Annual Report
Sixth Round of Mutual Evaluations
The evaluation visits (started in May 2012) to Member StatescarriedoutwithintheframeworkoftheSixth round of mutual evaluations on the practical implemen-tation and operation of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime and of Council Decision 2008/976/JHA on the European Ju-dicial Network in criminal matters (the Sixth Round) were concluded in May. The remaining reports on Member States were adopted by the Working Party on General Matters including Evaluation (GENVAL) in November and the finalreportoftheSixthRoundwas adoptedbytheCounciloftheEuropeanUnionon17December. With a view to implementing the recom-mendationsaddressed toEurojust, theCollege tookan active role and adopted an Action Plan and time-frameforitscompletionbasedonpre-setpriorities.Severalactionswereputforwardbeforethefinalre-port,aswellastoprepareforthe2ndmeetingoftheNationalCorrespondentsforEurojust(NCE).
External evaluation of the implementation of the Eurojust Decision
Article41aof theEurojustDecisionprovides that theCollege shall commission an independent external eval-uationoftheimplementationoftheEurojustDecisionaswellastheactivitiescarriedoutbyEurojustbefore4June2014andeveryfiveyearsthereafter.Italsopro-videsthateachevaluationshallassesstheimpactoftheEurojustDecision,Eurojust’sperformance in termsofachievingtheobjectivesreferredtointheEurojustDe-cision,aswellastheeffectivenessandefficiencyofEu-rojust.On18February2014,theCollegeissuedspecifictermsofreferenceinconsultationwiththeCommission.
A steering committee was established by College deci-sion in January 2014. The steering committee should provide the evaluator with timely comments on the evaluationreportandinformtheCollege,onaregularbasis,ontheprogressoftheevaluation.Thesteeringcommittee should also contribute to the quality as-sessmentofthefinalevaluationreport,basedonpre-establishedcriteria,whilemaintainingtheindepend-enceoftheevaluator,presenttheevaluationreporttotheCollegefordiscussion,anddrawupadissemina-tionplanforthefinalevaluationreport.
On 22 September 2014, Eurojust signed a contractwithErnstandYoungAccountantsLLPasanexternalconsultant. The evaluation project consists of threephases:Inception,DataCollection,andAnalysis&Re-porting.ThefirststepoftheevaluationprocesswascompletedinDecember2014bytheadoptionofthefinalInceptionReport.
ThenextstepistheDataCollectionphase,whichwillcommenceinJanuary2015.Thefinalphaseissched-uledtobecompletedinJune2015.ThefinalEvalua-tionReportshallbeforwardedtotheEuropeanPar-liament,theCouncilandtheCommissioninJuly2015and shall be made public.
Eurojust Multi-Annual Strategy
Eurojust published its Multi-annual Strategic Plan (MASP) 2012-2014 to set out the direction it should taketo face thechallengesahead.TheMASP identi-fiedstrategicgoals tobeachievedby implementingmulti-annual strategic objectives. These strategic ob-jectives were linked to Eurojust’s operational activi-ties in Eurojust’s AnnualWork Programmes,whichin turn provide the basis for budget and resource
2nd Meeting of the NCE
The NCE meeting took place on 27 Novem-ber at Eurojust. Participants shared their experience and best practice regarding na-tionalguidelinesonthedistributionofcasesbetween Eurojust and the EJN (see Section 6.1),discussedtheFiches Suédoises and the useofEurojust’s‘smart’Article13form,andexpressed their views with regard to the feedback tobeprovidedbyEurojust inac-cordance with Article 13a (see Section 1.3).
Eurojust Extranet
The Eurojust Extranet was launched on the occasionoftheNCEmeeting.Thisisare-strictedareaonEurojust’swebsiteforNa-tional Correspondents that includes vari-ousdocumentsofrelevancetotheworkofpractitioners, such as national guidelinesonthedistributionofcasesbetweenEuro-justandtheEJN,nationalguidelinesontheimplementationofArticle13oftheEuro-just Decision and the Fiches Suédoises.
68 Theme: Evaluation and future perspectives
programming. The MASP covers the period 2012 to 2014,and theCollegedecided toextend it to2015.The document is available on Eurojust’s website.
On13May,theCollegeadoptedthenewMulti-Annual Strategy(MAS)2016-2018.Eurojustisfacingacrucialphase in itsdevelopment: theadoptionof aRegula-tiononEurojustandtheestablishmentofaEuropeanPublicProsecutor’sOffice.Eurojust’sMAS2016-2018sets out the direction Eurojust will take in light ofthesechallenges,andreconcilestheneedtocontinueto strengthen its operational capacities while adapt-ing to a changing environment. The text is available on Eurojust’s website and is summarised below.
Eurojust Regulation
AsforeseeninArticle85oftheTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion(TFEU),inJuly2013,theCommis-sionpresentedaProposalonanewEurojustRegulation,theobjectivesofwhichare to strengthenEurojust andincreaseitseffectiveness.TheproposedEurojustRegula-tion is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure.
InApril2014,theCollegesubmittedawrittencontri-bution regarding this Proposal to the Council Working
PartyonCooperationinCriminalMatters(COPEN),providinganswerstothequestionsofthePresiden-cyandEurojust’sviewsandobservationsonsignifi-cantaspectsoftheProposal.
Thetopicscoveredare,inter alia,thetasksandcom-petences,operationalfunction,statusandpowersofNational Members, structure and governance, OCC,ENCS, information exchange, JITs, data protection,andthefuturerelationshipwiththeEPPO(see Coun-cil doc. 8488/14). In June 2014, Eurojust providedadditionalinformationregardingthedataprotectionregime (see Council doc. 10622/14).
InDecember2014,theCounciladopteda‘partialgen-eralapproach’,coveringtheentiretextofthedraftReg-ulation,exceptfortheprovisionsrelatedtotheEPPO,dataprotection,andconfidentialityandsecurityrulesonclassifiedandnon-classifiedsensitiveinformation.
The consequences of Article 86 TFEU,which statesthatafutureEPPOmaybeestablished‘fromEurojust’,remainunderdiscussion.Thereformwasproposedby the Commission as a ‘package’: the regulation on ‘Lisbonising’Eurojustontheonehand,andtheestab-lishmentoftheEPPOontheother.
Our vision – where does Eurojust want to go?
Eurojust’svision,withintheAreaofFreedom,SecurityandJustice,istodevelopandenhancejudicialcooperation,coordinationandmutualtrustintheEuropeanUnioninthefightagainstseriousorgan-isedcross-bordercrimeandterrorismandtoensurerespectfortheruleoflaw.
Duringtheperiod2016-2018,Eurojustwillhavethreemainstrategicgoals:
Goal 1 - Operational work
Eurojustwill functionasthecentre foroperational judicialsupport intheEuropeanUnion,proac-tivelyfosteringandfacilitatingthecooperationandcoordinationofthecompetentauthoritiesoftheMemberStates inseriouscross-bordercrimecases,providinghigh-qualityservicesandadvicere-sponsive to stakeholders’ needs and achieving excellent operational results.
Goal 2 – Strategic work
EurojustwillcontinuetodevelopandberecognisedasthecentreofjudicialandlegalexpertiseintheEuropeanUnion,providingadvicetostakeholdersbasedonoperationalexperienceinjudicialcoop-eration in criminal matters.
Goal 3 - Organisational development
Eurojustwillcontinuetodevelopandberecognisedasaneffective,efficient,highlyprofessional,client-orientedandflexibleorganisation.
692014 Annual Report
Council recommendations Follow-up
To inform the Council about the intended outcomes of seconding Liaison Prosecutors for Eurojust operational work and whether there are concrete plans to that effect.
DiscussionscontinuedonthesecondingofLiaisonProsecutorstothirdStates,includingonbudgetaryissues,andpreparationsfortheestablishmentofaframeworkwillproceed.
To continue enhancing the efficiency of the CMS and to complete the necessary technical require-ments with the relevant Member States.
See Section 1.3.
Attheendof2014,elevensecureconnectionswereestablished and operational.
To comply with the obligations stemming from Article 13 and Article 13a and to continue to work on user-friendly ways to enable a struc-tured transmission of information from Member States to Eurojust.
See Section 1.3.
Eurojustlaunchedaproceduretosimplifytheformattheendof2014.
To inform the Council about the outcome of the evaluation of the OCC.
The OCC is a tool to be used only in emergencies or un-derexceptionalcircumstances.Outsidenormalofficehours,mostNationalDeskscanbecontacteddirectlyon their mobile telephones without using the OCC.
TheoutcomeoftheSixthRoundofMutualEvalua-tionsconfirmsEurojust’sassessmentthatthistoolshouldbemademoreflexible.EurojusthasbroughtthistotheattentionoftheEUlegislator(see Council doc.8488/14,pp.23-25).
TheexternalevaluationofEurojustunderArticle41aoftheEurojustDecision,whichcomprisestheOCC,isongoing.
To continue to develop long-term judicial trainee-ships in cooperation with the EJTN and consider enlarging their scope.
SeeSection2.2,boxon‘Eurojustandtraining’.
The long-term exchange programme was positively evaluated,anextensionofonemonthwasconsideredand short-term study visits will be reintroduced in 2015.
The Consultative Forum to address persistent challenges in handling European Arrest Warrant or Mutual Legal Assistance requests.
SeeChapter4,Focus of the year.
The Consultative Forum meetings that took place on 11 Juneand12DecemberfocusedontheEAW.
Follow-up to Council Conclusions
On2June,theJHACounciladoptedConclusionsonthetwelfth Eurojust Annual Report (8942/2/14). As in previousyears,Eurojustreportsontheimplementationoftheseconclusions.Belowisatableindicatingwhere
moreinformationcanbefoundintheareasinwhichtheCouncilmaderecommendations.Furthermore,asecondtable with subjects highlighted in the Conclusions and Eurojust’s activities related to these is presented below.
70 2014 Annual Report
Points for attention Follow-up
Sixth round of mutual evaluations on the practi-cal implementation and operation of the Euro-just and EJN decisions.
See Theme: Evaluation and future perspectives.All outcome reports were made available to the exter-nal evaluator (Art. 41a Eurojust Decision).
JITs Network restricted area and the Project on JITs evaluation.
See Section 1.4.
Cooperation with Europol and OLAF. See Section 2.4.
Involvement of Eurojust in EMPACT. See Section 2.1.
Strategic project on environmental crime. See subsection 2.3.2.
Public access to documents
The number of requests for public access to Euro-justdocumentsremainedstablein2014,amountingtotwenty-five initialrequests, twenty-fourofwhichwere received directly by Eurojust. Eurojust was con-sultedasathirdpartyinoneothercase,followingarequest received by another European institution. No confirmatoryapplicationswerereceivedin2014.
Twenty-twooutoftwenty-fiverequestswerefornon-case-relateddocuments. In seventeenof the twenty-twonon-case-relatedrequests,accesswasfullygrant-ed.Inonecase,accesstotherequesteddocumentwasrefusedbecauseitsreleasewouldunderminethepro-tectionofthepublicinterest(Article4(1)(a)oftheEu-rojust College Decision to Adopt Rules Regarding Pub-licAccesstoEurojustDocumentsof2004,hereinafterreferredtoas‘EurojustAccesstoDocumentsrules’).
In another case, access to the requested documentwas refusedbecause the criteria laid down inArti-cle 2(1) of the Eurojust Access toDocuments ruleswere notmet. In the remaining three cases, eitherthe requested documents were not held by Eurojust (tworequests)orfurtherclarificationswereneeded
toidentifythedocument(onerequest).Inthelattercase,arequestforclarificationwassentbyEurojust(inaccordancewithArticle6(2)of theEurojustAc-cess toDocuments rules),but theapplicantdidnotfollowuponhisquery.
With regard to the three requests to access case-relat-eddocuments,eithertherequesteddocumentswerenotheldbyEurojust(tworequests)orfurtherclari-fication was needed to identify the document (onerequest).Inthelattercase,arequestforclarificationwas sent by Eurojust (in accordance with Article 6(2) of theEurojustAccess toDocumentsrules),but theapplicantdidnotfollowuponhisquery.
Eurojust also established a new Public Register ofdocuments accessible via Eurojust’s website. At the endofDecember,thePublicRegistercontainedmorethan 650 documents held by Eurojust. The Public Register will be regularly updated as new documents become available. The Public Register is designed to makedocumentsheldbyEurojusteasierforcitizensto access and to increase transparency and the avail-abilityofinformationonEurojust’sactivities.
We thank Mariana Ilieva Lilova, former National Member forBulgaria,Annette Böringer,formerNationalMemberforGermany,Sylvie Petit-Leclair,formerNationalMemberforFrance,Robert Sheehan,formerNationalMemberforIreland,Francesco Lo Voi,formerNationalMemberforItaly,andJoão Manuel Da Silva Miguel,formerNationalMemberforPortugal,fortheirworkandvaluablecontributiontoEurojust.
Thank you and farewell
©Eurojust,2015
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 the permission of Eurojust.
Thankyoutoalltheunitsfortheircontributions.
Design/DTP: Michèle Wilks-SpeerPhotos: JakovMinić(Eurojust);Shutterstock.
Austr
ia Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and
German
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce
Hunga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a
Netherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c
Denmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slove
nia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en
United
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a
Netherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Czec
h Rep
ublic
Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
Kingd
om A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land
Portu
gal R
oman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land
Italy
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en
United
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Czec
h Rep
ublic
Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a
Netherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia
Cypru
s Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any
Greece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Czec
h Rep
ublic
Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c
Denmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
Kingd
om A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce
Finlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en
United
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly L
atvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom A
ustria
Belgi
um Bu
lgaria
Croa
tia C
yprus
Cze
ch Re
publi
c Den
mark Es
tonia
Franc
e Finl
and G
erman
y Gree
ce H
unga
ry Ire
land I
taly
Latvi
a Lith
uania
Luxe
mbourg
Malt
a Neth
erlan
ds Po
land P
ortug
al Ro
mania
Slova
kia Sl
oven
ia Sp
ain Sw
eden
Unit
ed Ki
ngdo
m Aust
ria Be
lgium
Bulga
ria C
roatia
Cyp
rus C
zech
Repu
blic D
enmark
Eston
ia Fra
nce F
inlan
d Germ
any G
reece
Hun
gary
Irelan
d Ital
y Latv
ia Lit
huan
ia Lu
xembo
urg M
alta N
etherl
ands
Polan
d Port
ugal
Roman
ia Slo
vakia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en U
nited
King
dom
Production: euroscript Luxembourg S.à r. l. - w
ww
.euroscript.com
EUROJUST Maanweg 174, 2516 AB The Hague, Netherlands
Phone: +31 70 412 5000 - E-mail: [email protected] - Website: www.eurojust.europa.eu