Eurojust's Resource Paradox: Mandate-Resource Misalignment in Digital Judicial Cooperation
Keywords:
Eurojust, Judicial cooperation, Digitalization of justice, JIT collaboration platform, Criminogenic asymmetries, Multi-annual financial frameworkAbstract
The Eurojust Single Programming Document (SPD) 2026–2028 articulates a forward-leaning vision for the agency as a central, digital, and globally connected hub for judicial cooperation. It simultaneously reveals a widening gap between an expanding mandate and constrained resources [1]. Drawing on the SPD's workload projections, budgetary trajectory, and programmatic priorities, this article argues that Eurojust's strategy is appropriately diagnostic but operationally reactive, primarily because it is tethered to demand-driven caseloads and capped by the current Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF). The result is a "resource paradox": new tasks without commensurate funding, a ceiling on efficiency gains, and negative priorities that directly affect complex case support, cybersecurity posture, external cooperation, and the integrity of core digital initiatives. The article examines the risks embedded in Eurojust's digitalization program (notably CMS integration, JUDEX, and interoperability) and in expanded third-country cooperation, and proposes actionable reforms: (i) treat the SPD as an investment-grade business case; (ii) establish a realistic resource baseline in the forthcoming Eurojust Regulation revision; (iii) fund cybersecurity to the level of systemic risk; and (iv) embed robust safeguards for data protection, fundamental rights, and accountability across interoperable systems and external partnerships.
References
[1] Eurojust. Single Programming Document 2026–2028. European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, 2025.
[2] European Commission. Digitalization of Justice Communication. Brussels: European Commission; 2020.
[3] Passas N. Structural analysis of corruption: The role of criminogenic asymmetries. Transnational Organized Crime. 1998;4(1):42–55.
[4] Passas N. Globalization and transnational crime: Effects of criminogenic asymmetries. In: Williams P, Vlassis D, editors. Combating transnational crime: Concepts, activities and responses. London: Frank Cass; 2001. p. 22–56.
[5] Passas N. Informal value transfer systems and criminal organizations: A study into so-called underground banking networks. The Hague: Ministry of Justice, The Netherlands; 1999.
[6] Europol. EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA) 2021. The Hague: Europol; 2021.
[7] Europol. Decoding the EU's Most Threatening Criminal Networks. The Hague: Europol; 2024.
[8] Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust). Off J Eur Union. 2018.
[9] European Commission. Interoperability frameworks for EU information systems. Brussels: European Commission; 2021b.
[10] Passas N. Cross-border crime and the interface between legal and illegal actors. Security Journal. 2003;16(1):19–37.
[11] van Duyne P, von Lampe K, Passas N, editors. Upperworld and underworld in cross-border crime. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers; 2002.
[12] Mitsilegas V. The privatisation of mutual trust in Europe's area of criminal justice: The case of e-evidence. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 2018;25(3):263–265.
[13] Mitsilegas V. The European model of judicial cooperation in criminal matters: Towards effectiveness based on earned trust. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal. 2019;5(2):565–595.
[14] Weyembergh A. The principle of ne bis in idem in Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. In: Bergström M, Mitsilegas V, Quintel T, editors. Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2024. p. 161–182.
[15] Brière C. Eurojust @ 20: A successful modernization of the agency? In: Bergström M, Mitsilegas V, Quintel T, editors. Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2024. p. 407–426.
[16] Passas N. Global anomie, dysnomie, and economic crime: Hidden consequences of neoliberalism and globalization in Russia and around the world. Social Justice. 2000;27(2):16–44.
[17] Regulation (EU) 2023/2841 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity at the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. Off J Eur Union. 2023.
[18] Regulation (EU) 2019/816 establishing a centralised system for the identification of Member States holding conviction information on third-country nationals and stateless persons (ECRIS-TCN). Off J Eur Union. 2019.
[19] Passas N. Hawala and other informal value transfer systems: How to regulate them? Risk Management. 2003;5(2):49–59.
[20] Passas N. Informal value transfer systems, terrorism and money laundering. Report to the National Institute of Justice. Boston: Northeastern University; 2003c.
[21] Council of Europe. White Paper on Transnational Organised Crime. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2014.
[22] European Parliament. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters: Fact Sheet. Brussels: European Parliament; 2024.
[23] Passas N, editor. Transnational financial crime. London: Routledge; 2016.
[24] Passas N. Cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and financial crimes. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology. 2025;14:76–89.
[25] Chainalysis. The 2024 Crypto Crime Report. New York: Chainalysis; 2024.
[26] OSCE. Decoding Crypto Crime: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Vienna: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe; 2024.
[27] Franssen V. Cross-border gathering of electronic evidence in the EU: Toward more direct cooperation under the e-Evidence Regulation. In: Bergström M, Mitsilegas V, Quintel T, editors. Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2024. p. 183–210.
[28] Tosza S. The e-Evidence Package is adopted: End of a saga or beginning of a new one? European Data Protection Law Review. 2023;9(2):163–172.
[29] Carrera S, Stefan M, Mitsilegas V. Cross-border data access in criminal proceedings and the future of digital justice. CEPS Task Force Report. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies; 2020.
[30] European Commission. Communication on a European Approach to Cybersecurity. Brussels: European Commission; 2024.
[31] Porcedda MG. Cybersecurity Regulation in the European Union: The Digital, the Critical and Fundamental Rights. In: Porcedda MG, editor. Cybersecurity Regulation in the European Union. Berlin: Springer; 2019. p. 1–30.
[32] De Hert P, Sajfert J. Variety, velocity, and volume of personal data in criminal investigations and proceedings. In: Bergström M, Mitsilegas V, Quintel T, editors. Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2024. p. 211–237.
[33] Vavoula N. The criminalisation of irregular migration under EU law: An evolving human-rights centred legal framework? In: Bergström M, Mitsilegas V, Quintel T, editors. Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2024. p. 294–319.
[34] European Commission. Roadmap for lawful and effective access to data for law enforcement. Brussels: European Commission; 2025. COM(2025) 349 final.
[35] Council of the European Union. Council conclusions on strengthening judicial cooperation with third countries in the fight against organised crime. Brussels: Council of the European Union; 2024.
[36] Passas N. Fighting Terror with Error: The Counter-productive Regulation of Informal Value Transfers. Crime, Law and Social Change. 2006b;45(4–5):315–336.
[37] Slaughter A-M. A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004.
[38] Council of Europe. Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence (CETS No. 224). Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2021.
[39] European Data Protection Supervisor. International cooperation to fight crime should respect EU fundamental rights guarantees. Brussels: EDPS; 2025.
[40] UNODC. The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; 2010.
[41] SIPRI. Transnational organized crime: A threat to global public goods. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; 2022.
[42] European Commission. Evaluation of Eurojust under Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 [Internet]. Brussels: European Commission; 2025 [cited 2025 Jan]. Available from: https://commission.europa.eu/publications/evaluation-eurojust_en
[43] European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters. Off J Eur Union. 2023. Regulation 2023/2844.
[44] European Commission. European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028. Off J Eur Union. 2025. C/2025/437.
[45] Pingen A, Wahl T. New Legal Framework on Digitalisation of Judicial Cooperation. eucrim: European Criminal Law Review. 2024;4:331–332.
[46] Eurojust. Digital Criminal Justice Programme [Internet]. The Hague: Eurojust; 2025 [cited 2025 Jan]. Available from: https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/judicial-cooperation/instruments/digital-criminal-justice-programme
[47] European Data Protection Supervisor. International agreements to fight crime require strong data protection safeguards. Brussels: EDPS; 2023.
[48] De Hert P. Cybersecurity as a Fundamental Right: Towards a Digital Safety Charter for Europe. Computer Law & Security Review. 2024;51:105904.
[49] Faggiani V. Digitalisation of criminal justice in the EU through EU-LISA cooperation with Eurojust and Europol: between extraordinary potential and persistent opacity. Unio - Eu Law Journal. 2024;10(2):40–56. https://doi.org/10.21814/unio.10.2.6051
[50] Kot E. Interoperability of EU information systems – a tool to fight terrorism and serious cross-border crime (part I). Problemy Kryminalistyki. 2022;(315):5–12. https://doi.org/10.34836/pk.2022.315.1
[51] Mandayam R. The intersection of criminal justice and cybersecurity: legal implications. International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management. 2024;9(2):1–7. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem41544
[52] Škrlec B. Eurojust and external dimension of EU judicial cooperation. Eucrim - The European Criminal Law Associations Forum. 2019;14(3):188–193. https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2019-018
