1.Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action?

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative?

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in nature?

In the case of law enforcement cooperation, the Union’s competence is shared (Article 4(2)(j) TFEU). Pursuant to Article 88(2) TFEU, Europol's role is limited to supporting, coordinating and strengthening cooperation between national law enforcement authorities, while executive law enforcement powers remain with the Member States. The new Europol proposal does not alter this distribution of competences but further develops Europol's supporting role within the framework of shared competence.

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined in Article 3 TFEU 1 . It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal falls under the subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU 2 sets out the areas where competence is shared between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU 3 sets out the areas for which the Unions has competence only to support the actions of the Member States.

2.Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act?

2.1Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 2 4 :

-Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act?

-Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level?

2.2Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the principle of subsidiarity?

The conformity with the principle of subsidiarity is assessed in the explanatory memorandum and in the Impact Assessment accompanying the legislative proposal.

The challenges addressed by this proposal are inherently cross-border and cannot be effectively tackled by Member States acting in isolation. The most serious and organised forms of crime are now predominantly transnational in nature, with criminal networks operating seamlessly across jurisdictions and digital environments. They exploit the fragmentation of national information, operational action and capabilities. As a result, Member States have only partial visibility of criminal activities and face structural limitations in connecting investigations and responding effectively to criminal activities that extend beyond their national jurisdiction.

Action at Union level is therefore more effective and necessary. The scale, speed and cross-border nature of criminal activity require a level of coordination, data aggregation and analytical capacity that cannot be achieved by Member States acting individually. By operating at Union level, Europol is able to combine information from multiple jurisdictions, identify patterns and connections that would otherwise remain undetected, and support the prioritisation and coordination of operational action across borders. In doing so, it enhances the impact of national investigations and ensures that responses to cross-border crime are not fragmented but aligned and mutually reinforcing. It also enables the development and deployment of advanced capabilities that are beyond the reach of individual Member States acting alone, which also enables economies of scale in areas where the development of capabilities is resource-intensive and requires critical mass. By centralising such capacities at Union level and making them available across Member States, the proposal avoids duplication, reduces costs and ensures a consistent and high level of effectiveness.

In a Schengen area without internal frontiers, this collective capacity is essential to ensure that the level of law enforcement cooperation is commensurate with the level of integration achieved.

2.3Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)?

The objectives of the proposal cannot be achieved sufficiently by Member States acting alone. Serious and organised crime, terrorism, cyber-enabled crime and hybrid threats increasingly operate across borders and exploit differences between national systems. Individual Member States have only a partial view of criminal activities and cannot independently generate a comprehensive EU-wide criminal intelligence picture. While national authorities remain responsible for investigations and enforcement, only action at Union level can effectively connect information, support coordinated operational responses, and provide advanced analytical and technological capabilities that require economies of scale. Europol therefore addresses challenges that are inherently transnational and exceed the capacities of individual Member States.

(a)Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems being tackled? Have these been quantified?

Yes. The problems addressed are inherently transnational. Serious and organised crime networks and terrorist groups operate across multiple jurisdictions, use digital infrastructures that transcend national borders and exploit differences between national legal and operational systems. The explanatory memorandum highlights that crime is increasingly "international by default", requiring cross-border intelligence gathering, operational coordination and information sharing. Europol's evaluation covering 2017-2024 also confirmed that a significant share of the Agency's operational support concerns cross-border investigations.

(b)Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of the Treaty 5 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States?

The absence of EU-level action would undermine the Treaty objective of providing citizens with a high level of security within an area of freedom, security and justice. It would also risk creating further operational blind spots and reducing the effectiveness of cross-border investigations, thereby negatively affecting other Member States whose security increasingly depends on effective cooperation and information sharing across the Union.

(c)To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate measures?

Member States can adopt national measures and remain responsible for law enforcement activities and investigations. However, they cannot by themselves establish a complete criminal intelligence picture across the Union, systematically connect information originating from different jurisdictions, or provide the same level of cross-border coordination and shared technological capabilities. National action alone would therefore be insufficient to address information fragmentation and operational gaps affecting investigations with a cross-border dimension.

(d)How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary across the national, regional and local levels of the EU?

While operational impacts may vary between Member States, regions and local authorities depending on crime patterns and exposure to specific threats, information fragmentation, difficulties in linking investigations and limited access to advanced technological capabilities are common challenges across the Union that national measures alone cannot address.

(e)Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States?

The problem is widespread across the EU. Serious and organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime and hybrid threats affect all Member States, albeit to varying degrees. The functioning of the Schengen area without internal border controls further reinforces the need for coordinated responses across the Union.

(f)Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure?

Not necessarily in terms of legal competence or resources, but Member States acting individually face structural limitations in achieving the objectives of the proposal. They cannot independently overcome the fragmentation of information and operational action across the Union, nor can they efficiently develop and maintain certain advanced technological capabilities that require significant investment and critical mass. This assessment is supported by stakeholder consultations, which showed broad consensus on the need to strengthen Europol’s information-processing, analytical and operational support functions, as well as EU-level technological capabilities.

(g)How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities differ across the EU?

2.4Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)?

The objectives can be better achieved at Union level because Europol provides clear added value as a central information, operational and technology hub. Union action allows information from different jurisdictions to be connected and analysed, facilitates coordinated cross-border investigations, and enables the development of advanced capabilities that would be difficult or costly for individual Member States to develop separately. The proposal therefore generates economies of scale, reduces duplication, strengthens legal certainty and ensures a more coherent response to security threats affecting the Union as a whole.

(a)Are there clear benefits from EU level action?

(b)Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved?

Yes. Significant economies of scale can be achieved through the centralised development of analytical tools, secure data infrastructures, technological capabilities and specialised expertise. Instead of each Member State developing equivalent capacities independently, Europol can provide shared services and capabilities at Union level, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency.

(c)What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more homogenous policy approach?

A more homogeneous approach improves interoperability, information exchange and operational cooperation between national authorities. It reduces legal and procedural fragmentation, facilitates cooperation with other EU bodies and agencies, and ensures more consistent support for cross-border investigations throughout the Union.

(d)Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, regional and local levels)?

Yes. The proposal does not transfer core law enforcement powers to the Union. Member States remain fully responsible for investigations, operational decisions and the exercise of coercive powers. The benefits generated through improved information exchange, coordination and shared capabilities therefore outweigh the limited constraints associated with stronger Union-level cooperation.

(e)Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation?

Yes. By repealing and replacing the current Regulation with a comprehensive and modernised framework, the proposal clarifies Europol's responsibilities, operational role, data-processing framework and cooperation mechanisms. This increases predictability and legal certainty for Member States, EU agencies and private stakeholders.

3. Proportionality: How the EU should act

3.1 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the principle of proportionality?

The explanatory memorandum and the Impact Assessment accompanying the legislative proposal contain adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the proposal.

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objectives.

The proposal introduces a more integrated framework for Union-level support to law enforcement, reflecting the scale and complexity of cross-border crime. It focuses on enabling more effective use of information, strengthening support to cross-border investigations and improving access to shared capabilities, which cannot be achieved satisfactorily by Member States alone, without altering the fundamental balance of competences between the Union and the Member States. In particular, it does not confer any coercive powers on Europol, which remain the exclusive competence of Member States.

Where relevant, the proportionality of the measures is further supported by the analysis carried out in the accompanying impact assessment.

3.2Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?

The proposal constitutes an appropriate and proportionate response to the identified problems. It focuses on those aspects that cannot be addressed effectively by Member States alone, namely the creation of an EU-wide criminal intelligence picture, enhanced cross-border operational support and the development of shared technological capabilities. The choice of a Regulation ensures legal certainty and uniform application across the Union, while preserving Member States' responsibility for law enforcement activities and maintaining the principle that Europol has no coercive powers.

(a)Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union can do better?

Yes.

(b)Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)?

Yes. The choice of a Regulation is justified because Europol itself is established by a Regulation and operates directly across all Member States. Repealing and replacing Regulation (EU) 2016/794 ensures a coherent, comprehensive and directly applicable legal framework. The explanatory memorandum also explains that incremental amendments would not be sufficient to accommodate the substantial operational, analytical and technological changes envisaged by the proposal.

(c)Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?)

Yes. The proposal leaves responsibility for criminal investigations, operational decisions, national security and coercive measures entirely with Member States. Europol's role remains supportive, analytical and coordinative. The proposal therefore limits Union action to what is necessary to achieve its objectives while preserving national discretion wherever possible.

(d)Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs commensurate with the objective to be achieved?

Yes. As assessed in the impact assessment and the legislative financial and digital statement, the proposal has budgetary implications at both Union and Member State level. These investments relate in particular to enhanced data-processing and analytical capacities, operational support, technological capabilities and secure digital infrastructures. However, these adjustments are expected to be proportionate and are outweighed by the benefits arising from improved information exchange, stronger operational coordination, more efficient cross-border investigations and access to shared Union-level capabilities. By reducing fragmentation, avoiding duplication of effort and enabling economies of scale in the development and deployment of advanced technological and analytical capabilities, the proposal is expected to generate significant operational benefits for national authorities while enhancing the security of citizens across the Union.

(e)While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member States been taken into account?

No, as there are no such special circumstances in the aspects addressed by the proposal.