The aim of this report is to assist practitioners, Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (EJN) in determining whether a particular case should, in the interest of efficiency and prevention of duplication of work, be directed to Eurojust or the EJN. The report constitutes an assessment of the allocation of cases to Eurojust and the EJN, identifies recent experience, difficulties and best practices and makes proposals.

Concerning the main criteria used to ascertain whether a request should be dealt with by Eurojust or by the EJN, the report shows that both Eurojust and the EJN highlight the importance of close contact between the Eurojust national desks (NDs) and the EJN contact points (CPs), and that overall, the communication between Eurojust and the EJN goes smoothly and works very well. The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that practitioners sometimes have practical difficulties in determining which actor is best placed to assist in a specific case.

The report shows that the assessment of whether a request should be dealt with by Eurojust or the EJN should be made on a case‐by‐case basis, taking into account first the complexity of the case, followed by its urgency, as the main criteria. However, in practice, there are sometimes other reasons why cases are sent to Eurojust instead of the EJN, and vice versa. Some examples of such reasons are (i) Eurojust’s 24/7 availability versus the EJN CPs’ sometimes more limited availability (e.g. during weekends); (ii) personal contacts within the Eurojust NDs which cause Eurojust to be favoured over the EJN; and (iii) on the other hand, certain knowledge gained in the EJN sometimes favour the EJN over Eurojust. These matters, amongst others mentioned in the report, should be addressed to ensure the correct allocation of cases to Eurojust and the EJN, for example by considering whether EJN CPs should have greater — perhaps even 24/7 — availability.