Chloe Briere

Competition or Cooperation?: State of Play and Future Perspectives on the Relations between Europol, Eurojust and the European Judicial Network

This article analyses the cooperation between EU agencies and bodies active in the fight against serious cross-border crime. It focuses on the cooperation between Europol and Eurojust on the one hand, and between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network on the other hand. Considering the existence of grey areas in which their respective mandates overlap, the complementarity of their actions and their smooth cooperation are essential to ensure coherence within the EU area of criminal justice. In both situations, the analysis of the current state of their cooperation allows the identification of good practices as well as points of concern. The current negotiations for regulations on Europol and Eurojust offer the opportunity to reflect on future perspectives and to suggest possible improvements.

Relations Between the EPPO and Eurojust—Still a Privileged Partnership?

Once it is established, the EPPO will not operate as an isolated actor, but it will integrate itself in the already existing network of EU agencies and bodies. In this context, its relations with Eurojust are of fundamental importance. Both actors are active in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the Treaty itself (Article 86 TFEU) provides for a special link between them. Provisions organising their relationship can be found in the EPPO’s and Eurojust’s proposals for regulations, which are still under negotiation. The present chapter analyses the modalities of their cooperation, as they are currently envisaged, with the aim to assess whether the two actors are privileged partners. This analysis is divided in three steps: it examines firstly their institutional relationship; secondly their management and administrative links and finally their operational cooperation. The analysis reveals that it is at the moment difficult to consider Eurojust as the EPPO’s privileged partner. A better clarification of their bilateral relations should be included in the draft proposals, and Eurojust’s expertise should be better taken into consideration. A further clarification of the distribution of competences between the EPPO, Eurojust and OLAF is also advisable, especially to avoid unnecessary tensions between the different actors.

The future cooperation between OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office:

Establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) will represent an important step for cross-border cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union, and more particularly for the protection of the Union’s financial interests. The EPPO’s work will complement the work carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office. This article, based on a briefing paper commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Budgetary Affairs, at the request of the Committee on Budgetary Control, analyses future cooperation between these two bodies, OLAF and the EPPO. Three main dimensions of their cooperation are analysed as well as the elements of complexity that may influence it. The article highlights elements essential for their close cooperation and complementarity, especially with regard to a potential revision of OLAF’s legal framework.

Balancing fundamental rights and migration management in the external dimension of the EU migration policy

Does the European Union ensure an appropriate balance between migration control and the protection of migrants’ fundamental rights? The present contribution addresses this question in the context of the EU’s efforts to externalise its migration policy and to cooperate with third countries. Its competences, and the measures adopted on their basis, partially integrate fundamental rights’ considerations. Recent measures justified by the current situation complement the long-term comprehensive efforts carried out in specific regional frameworks. However, these evolutions do not seem to change the (in)balance in favour of migration control to the detriment of the protection of fundamental rights.