The institutional and operational landscape has changed substantially in the past five years. As a result, Eurojust also must evolve. As expected, the evaluation report identified areas for improvement: particularly effectiveness and efficiency challenges in the governance, internal working practices and decision-making processes of the Agency. 

The study also shows that, depending in part on national legislation and in part on practice, simple bilateral cases are sometimes referred to Eurojust even though the EJN would also be competent and able to assist. 

The report points out that while international agreements are the most successful forms of cooperation with countries outside of the EU^[1] for the Agency (providing legal basis for exchanging operational data and for the posting of a Liaison Prosecutor), much more could be achieved through a reinforced mandate for cooperation with third countries and international organisations.

The Eurojust College took immediate action to address critical points identified in the evaluation, to the extent possible without amending the Eurojust Regulation. An internal action plan was adopted, including measures to improve the efficiency of the decision-making process and to identify indicators of what constitutes a complex case requiring Eurojust support.

[1] Evaluation Report, p 50