Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the Mutual Recognition of Freezing and Confiscation Orders: Application, Challengers, and Future Perspectives

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805, which became applicable on 19 December 2020, represents a key legislative development in the European Union’s ongoing efforts to strengthen cross-border cooperation in criminal matters, particularly in the field of asset recovery. It establishes a legal framework for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders issued by judicial authorities in EU Member States, aiming to replace the older system based on Council Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2006/783/JHA. Unlike its predecessors, the Regulation is directly applicable and binding in its entirety, which eliminates the need for transposition into national law and ensures a more uniform approach across the Union.

The Regulation is designed to facilitate the rapid and effective freezing and confiscation of criminal assets, regardless of where they are located within the EU. It applies to both property-based and value-based confiscation and includes non-conviction-based confiscation measures, provided such measures are permitted under the executing state’s national law. One of its central innovations is the use of standardized certificates and streamlined communication between competent authorities, which greatly reduces administrative burdens and accelerates the execution of judicial orders. Under the principle of mutual recognition, Member States are generally obliged to recognize and enforce orders without any need for further formalities, subject to limited grounds for refusal, such as ne bis in idem, immunity, or incompatibility with fundamental rights.

Despite its harmonizing ambition the implementation of Regulation 2018/1805 has encountered a number of practical and systemic challenges that hinder its full and consistent application across the EU. One of the primary difficulties arises from the significant divergence in national legal framework governing confiscation. While the Regulation sets out a common procedure for recognition and execution of orders, it does not harmonize the substantive laws underpinning freezing and confiscation. Furthermore, a major challenge relates to the limited awareness and inconsistent implementation of the Regulation among practitioners. In several Member States, national authorities, including prosecutors and judges, are not yet fully familiar with the new rules or continue to operate under the assumption that the previous framework decisions still apply. Technological and infrastructural limitations further obstruct the Regulation’s smooth operation. Not all Member States have adopted or effectively integrated digital tools such as the e-CODEX system, which is designed to facilitate the secure and rapid exchange of information in cross-border cases. In the absence of such systems, communication may still rely on outdated methods, which are incompatible with the Regulation’s ambition for speed and efficiency. Finally, a more subtle but no less important challenge lies in the political and institutional culture surrounding asset recovery. In some Member States, confiscation is not yet perceived as a central priority of criminal justice policy and authorities may lack dedicated asset recovery officers or necessary inter-agency coordination. Without a stronger culture of enforcement the Regulation’s potential remains underused.

Although the Regulation is theoretically a major step forward, its use in practice remains modest. Initial data and reports suggest that many authorities continue to rely on older cooperation mechanisms or bilateral arrangements, often due to a lack of institutional readiness or familiarity with the Regulation’s procedures. Despite these limitations, there is growing recognition that effective asset recovery is essential to combat organized crime, money laundering, and corruption. The European Commission is expected to monitor implementation closely and publish regular evaluations that may lead to further improvements.

In April 2024, Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation was adopted. This directive expands the scope of offences subject to confiscation and introduces a requirement for Member States to adopt national asset recovery strategies by 24 May 2027. Moreover, by 20 December 2025, the European Commission is expected to present a report on the application of Regulation 2018/1805, which may lead to further improvements in the area. Looking to the future, the success of Regulation 2018/1805 will largely depend on increased investment in judicial training, the development of interoperable digital tools such as e-CODEX for cross-border communication, and the cultivation of a stronger “confiscation culture” among Member States. Mutual trust remains a cornerstone of EU criminal justice cooperation, and the Regulation has the potential to become a highly effective instrument, provided that practical barriers are addressed and political will is maintained. In a time when criminal networks operate across borders with ease, a unified and efficient system for the recovery of criminal assets is not just desirable, but essential.