The Council of the European Union has published conclusions from the 65th plenary meeting of the European Judicial Network (EJN), held in Copenhagen from 5 to 7 November 2025, which address challenges in combatting criminal organisations, crime as a service, and crypto assets. The document, released on 23 June 2026, summarises workshop discussions and identifies gaps in legal frameworks, cross-border cooperation, and data retention that hinder judicial cooperation among EU Member States.
The conclusions stem from a meeting that brought together judicial practitioners from across the EU. In the first workshop, on combatting criminal organisations, participants noted that while most Member States have a legal definition of a criminal organisation, criteria vary, and a few lack one entirely. The burden of proof lies with the public prosecutor in almost all Member States, except Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta, where it falls on the police. Several Member States have provisions for dissolving or prohibiting criminal organisations, but these have no cross-border effect beyond possible relocation. Participants suggested creating an EU-wide blacklist of banned criminal organisations and supported identifying EJN Contact Points with specific expertise in this area.
The second workshop, on crime as a service, highlighted an increase in investigations where criminal assignments are advertised online, including for homicide, severe bodily harm, cybercrime, and drug trafficking. Legal definitions of attempt vary across Member States, complicating double criminality in surrender and extradition. Aiding and abetting remains difficult to prove due to the need to demonstrate the enabler's specific knowledge and intent. The predominant view was that proceedings should primarily take place in the state where the actual offence was committed. Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) were highlighted as valuable for multi-jurisdictional cases. Data retention rules differ greatly between Member States, with some requiring no storage and others mandating retention from two months to longer periods.
The third workshop, on crypto assets, noted their increasing use across a broad range of offences, including money laundering, cybercrime, ransomware, fraud, trafficking, and child sexual exploitation. Key challenges include the borderless nature of crypto assets, different Member State approaches to obtaining information, freezing assets, and confiscation, as well as varying views on cooperation with crypto-asset service providers (CASPs). Best practices identified include early action to preserve assets, involving specialised experts from the earliest stages, using standardised forms for CASPs, and leveraging Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation, including pre-confiscation sales. Participants stressed full use of existing cooperation mechanisms such as EJN, Eurojust, Europol, JITs, CARIN, the SIRIUS project, and the European Judicial Cybercrime Network. The conclusions do not propose new legislation but serve as a stocktaking exercise, with recommendations for enhanced information sharing, specialised expertise, and better use of existing networks. The document will inform future discussions within the Council and may influence the European Commission's work on judicial cooperation and organised crime. No formal follow-up is mandated, but the EJN is expected to continue its role as a key platform for sharing judicial decisions and best practices.