Criminal networks are moving faster than European law enforcement can follow. The EU now wants to change that, with a proposed European ‘police cloud’ and artificial intelligence reinforcing investigations. But the reforms raise hard questions about where security ends and fundamental rights begin.
The European Commission is drawing up a wide-ranging reform package covering Europol, Eurojust, and the EPPO (European Public Prosecutor’s Office). One of the central goals is to adapt EU cooperation mechanisms to a more digital and cross-border criminal landscape. Planned revisions include updates to the Europol mandate, with a new legislative proposal expected in 2026, as well as possible changes to Eurojust and broader judicial cooperation tools. An evaluation of the EPPO is also expected later this year.
According to Commission representatives, the future system will rest on three pillars: information exchange, operational cooperation, and innovation. “Only a truly integrated and seamless approach can match the scale, the speed and the level of sophistication that cross-border criminal networks have reached”, one official told MEPs. The reforms build on the EU’s long-standing ambition to develop an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
A European “police cloud”
One of the most significant proposals is the creation of a European “police cloud”. The system would allow national authorities to access and process information across borders. At the same time, it will strengthen Europol’s role as a criminal intelligence hub and a technological centre.
The initiative reflects a broader shift in policing. With 68 per cent of the global population online, opportunities for cybercrime are driving criminal activity into harder-to-trace environments such as the deep and dark web. Now, investigations depend on handling vast volumes of digital data. Europol shared a concrete example: in a single cross-border case, it analysed more than 150 million encrypted messages. Data-driven policing raises complex political questions about compliance with EU data protection rules and respecting national legal systems. This underlines the difficulty of balancing efficiency with fundamental rights.
You might be interested
AI in policing: opportunity and risk
Artificial intelligence is already being deployed or considered across law enforcement and criminal justice. This includes tasks of predictive analysis, criminal intelligence, and the processing of digital evidence. But its growing use is also raising concerns.
A European Parliament study notes that AI can significantly affect fundamental rights, such as privacy, non-discrimination, and fair trial. This is particularly evident where automated decision-making and profiling are involved. The analysis also stresses that law enforcement and criminal justice touch on “core issues of the relation between the individual and the State”, and therefore require heightened scrutiny.
This concern was echoed during the hearing by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. It warned that digital tools must operate under effective human oversight and remain grounded in principles of necessity, proportionality, and legality. Technology, the agency stressed, must “serve justice, not compromise it”.
Balancing security and rights
A central question was how to strengthen the EU’s ability to tackle crime without undermining the rule of law. In cases involving encrypted communications or large-scale data extraction, defence lawyers face vast volumes of evidence, sometimes millions of messages, making it difficult to challenge the material effectively in court. Experts warned that these risks undermine the principle of equality of arms between prosecution and defence.
The growing use of video hearings in cross-border proceedings is another point of tension. While remote participation can reduce delays and costs, it is not equivalent to physical presence and may affect confidentiality, defence strategy, and the ability to fully engage with proceedings.
Pre-trial detention under scrutiny
Alongside these digital challenges, practitioners pointed to a structural issue: the overuse of pre-trial detention. Around 1 in 5 people in prison in the EU are held without a final conviction. In cross-border cases, this is often linked to the European Arrest Warrant, which critics say is frequently used as a default option rather than a last resort. To address this, they called for greater use of less restrictive alternatives, such as the European Supervision Order. This allows suspects to remain in their country of residence, instead of being transferred to another member state.
The law in the books is not enough.
—EU Agency for Fundamental Rights
The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights echoed these concerns, warning that “the law in the books is not enough”. Its representative stressed that legal safeguards must function effectively in real-world cases.
The legislative proposals expected later this year aim to equip EU agencies and national authorities for a more digital and interconnected criminal environment. As digital technologies reshape crime and policing, the challenge for the EU is to keep pace without compromising fundamental rights.
