Loading

Eurojust Third Country Agreements

76.Eurojust has cooperation agreements with a number of third countries and liaison prosecutors from the United States of America, Switzerland and Norway. Alison Saunders told us that liaison prosecutors were “capable of engaging in the same way in many cases.” It stressed, however, that liaison prosecutors were not on Eurojust`s board of directors and therefore could not influence the Agency`s strategic direction. More importantly, from the SPC`s point of view, they do not have access to Eurojust`s file management system, which currently allows the SPC to “check all cases or investigations we have on the Eurojust basis” to determine whether other Member States should be involved.96 Stephen Rodhouse also warned that a future bilateral or ad hoc agreement would likely be “under-compatible with the agreement we have”.97 In total, around 350 Eurojust holders. Some are permanent (office of the director of administration, budget and budget office, corporate communications office, security, information management), are part of the networks and secretariats run by Eurojust (genocide network, European judicial network and joint investigation team), or by the legal division of Eurojust, with lawyers from several different legal systems. The rest are the 28 current national offices of the EU Member States and the three third countries represented at Eurojust. Some of the national desks have staff of 5 to 6 people (prosecutors and administrative assistants), while others are much smaller, depending on the size of the countries they represent. All prosecutors working at Eurojust are experienced experts specialising in various areas of law enforcement. The creation of an institution such as Eurojust has been a long and long process. It required an ongoing commitment and, in particular, a financial investment by all the countries represented at Eurojust and the Netherlands as the host state of Eurojust. During its existence, Eurojust has undergone several modifications and modifications, and this process is ongoing. I hope that such a regional institution can become a very important platform to strengthen and support the investigative and law enforcement services. This is a long-term project that I would recommend to approach step by step. It must also be taken into account that ASEAN and ECOWAS face very different challenges from those faced by EU Member States when they decided to create Eurojust.

There is no option for a “model for all.” A study visit to Eurojust to see how Eurojust works in practice and what elements could be taken up by ASEAN and ECOWAS could certainly be a first step proposed. Negotiating cooperation agreements with Eurojust could be a next step and things could then be removed from there. For example, the experience of using EAW in the 2018 edition of Eurojust s Overview on Case Law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the European Treaty of www.eurojust.europa.eu/press/News/News/Pages/2018/2018-11-29_EAW-Case-Case-Law-Report.aspx has been published. ↩ Eurojust has entered into a cooperation agreement with Switzerland as a third country (non-EU member state) which allows my country to send a liaison prosecutor to Eurojust. This agreement has been in force since 2011. In the nearly 15 years that I have worked as a federal prosecutor at the OAG, I myself have been Switzerland`s external point of contact with Eurojust since the beginning of 2002.

Share this :