Eurojust assisted national judicial authorities in over 6 000 cases involving a European Investigation Order (EIO) in 2024. Compared to 2023, the number of new cases involving an EIO handled by the Agency decreased by 10%, while the number of ongoing cases increased by roughly the same percentage. Overall, the number of cases the Agency dealt with involving an EIO decreased slightly in 2024 compared to the previous year.

During 2024, the Agency continued to provide support and advice to national authorities throughout the life cycle of the EIO, from the drafting to the execution phase. For instance, Eurojust assisted in obtaining clarifications or additional information prior to the execution of an EIO. The Agency also facilitated the execution of urgent EIOs and, in multilateral cases, often ensured coordination between the execution of different EIOs in several Member States. In addition, Eurojust supported several cases where legal or practical issues arose, such as the hearing of defendants by videoconference and the participation of accused persons at trial.

Throughout 2024, Eurojust continued to work on several EIO topics, including the relationship of the EIO to the spontaneous exchange of information between judicial authorities, the interception of telecommunications and national case-law regarding the EIO. The Agency also analysed the practical implications of the CJEU’s judgment in the EncroChat case, in view of its potential impact on Eurojust’s casework. Moreover, the Agency continued to monitor the relevant case-law of the CJEU more generally as well.

The EIO is the instrument evaluated in the 10th round of mutual evaluations. In 2024, Eurojust participated as an observer in all five on-site evaluation visits in the Member States applying the EIO Directive. The final report of the Council was adopted in November 2024 (see key publication). It concludes that the EIO generally works well in practice, but also recommends that the European Commission consider legislative changes concerning several critical issues also identified in Eurojust’s casework.

Such changes cover various aspects, including the need to clarify whether GPS tracking and car bugging fall within the scope of interception of telecommunications; whether hearing defendants by videoconference, the participation of accused persons at trial and the speciality rule apply in the context of the EIO Directive; and determining the scope of the EIO vis-à-vis other judicial cooperation instruments, such as the EAW and Freezing Certificates.

The final report recognises the added value of Eurojust in facilitating communication and coordination in complex and multilateral cases, improving compliance with time limits and preparing strategic documents, also jointly with the European Judicial Network.