The 65th plenary meeting of the European Judicial Network (EJN), held in Copenhagen from 5 to 7 November 2025, adopted conclusions on combatting criminal organisations, crime as a service, and crypto assets, affecting EU Member States' judicial cooperation. The conclusions, published in a Council note dated 25 June 2026, highlight the need for harmonised definitions, early information sharing, specialised expertise, and robust cross-border judicial cooperation.
On combatting criminal organisations, the plenary noted that most Member States have a legal definition of 'criminal organisation,' but criteria vary, and a few lack one. 'Participating in a criminal organisation' is a separate crime, an aggravating circumstance, or both, depending on the Member State. Several Member States have provisions on dissolution or prohibition, but only for legal entities, and these measures have no cross-border effect. The burden of proof lies with the public prosecutor in most Member States, except in Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta, where it lies with police. Participants noted the lack of common requirements for cross-border undercover agents and suggested creating a 'black list' of criminal organisations banned in the EU. The EJN's role was deemed crucial for sharing judicial decisions, and support was expressed for identifying EJN Contact Points with specific expertise.
Regarding crime as a service, participants reported encountering more investigations where criminal assignments (e.g., homicide, cybercrime, drug trafficking) are advertised online, often cross-border. Legal definitions of 'attempt' vary across Member States, complicating double criminality in surrender or extradition. Aiding and abetting poses difficulty in proving the enabler's specific knowledge or intent; preparatory offenses or participation in a criminal organisation may close gaps. Most Member States have broad jurisdiction, but proceedings should primarily be in the state where the actual offense occurred. Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) were highlighted as valuable. Data retention rules differ greatly between Member States, and encrypted communications and burner functions are obstacles. EJN Contact Points as 'active intermediaries' are central for international judicial cooperation.
On crypto assets, the plenary noted that they are increasingly used across all crime types, almost always with a cross-border dimension. Key challenges include the borderless nature, different Member State approaches to freezing and confiscation, varying cooperation with crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), opaque corporate structures, lack of a common operational approach, and need for specialised expertise. Best practices include early action to preserve assets, involving specialised experts from the earliest stages, standardised forms for CASPs, use of Directive (EU) 2024/1260 (the new EU Asset Recovery and Confiscation Directive) including pre-confiscation sales, and full use of existing cooperation mechanisms (EJN, Eurojust, Europol, JITs, CARIN, SIRIUS project, European Judicial Cybercrime Network).
The conclusions are non-binding but provide guidance for Member States and EU bodies. They will inform future legislative initiatives and operational cooperation. The Council is expected to take note of the conclusions, and the European Commission may consider them in upcoming proposals on judicial cooperation and anti-crime measures.