“Notwithstanding the provisions contained in any instruments adopted by the European Union regarding judicial cooperation, a competent authority may report to Eurojust recurrent refusals or difficulties concerning the execution of requests for, and decisions on, judicial cooperation, including regarding instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition”376 Article 3(1)(b) of the Eurojust Council Decision, provides that, “In the context of investigations and prosecutions, concerning two or more Member States, of criminal behaviour referred to in Article 4 of the EJD in relation to serious crime, particularly when it is organised, the objectives of Eurojust shall be to improve cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States, in particular by facilitating the execution of the execution of requests for, and decisions on, judicial cooperation, including regarding instruments giving effects to the principle of mutual recognition.” Eurojust also gathers information on the fundamental rights aspects of the implementation of EAWs, particular with regard to convictions in absentia, and the right to a retrial where the individual was not notified of the trial. As part of this information, as noted in the CJEU decision of Aranyosi and Căldăraru, where the executing authority looks to postpone the execution of an EAW, they are required to notify Eurojust.377 The Commission has also tasked Eurojust with holding expert meetings to facilitate the practical application of FD TOP, as well as to provide guiding materials for judicial authorities. Furthermore, as outlined already, the Commission has requested Eurojust to collect data on the practical application of FD TOP. Just as SPT and CPT can offer practical guidance to NPM on the fulfilment of their mandate, and can advise on aspects such as institutional exchange including between NPMs and judges, so too can judges seek support from Eurojust on the implementation of mutual recognition instruments. Member States should be ready to engage with Eurojust both to allow for efficient information gathering, but also in terms of providing guidance in relation to problematic or challenging areas. 4.5. the european commission It is appropriate to close this study with a discussion on the role of the European Commission, as the body central to the operation and use of Framework Decisions on detention, and one that is committed to their fundamental rights compliant implementation. Through strategies such as strengthening the role of Eurojust in cross-border criminal proceedings, the European Commission has had the opportunity, following on from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on the 1st December 2009, to enhance the role of criminal justice in the EU. This provided for increased areas of competence relating to criminal procedural as well as substantive legal measures. Article 82 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on foot of the Lisbon Treaty provides that: 376 Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/ JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime Available at http://www.eurojust.europa. eu/doclibrary/Eurojust-framework/ejdecision/New%20Eurojust%20Decision%20(Council%20Decision%202009-426JHA)/Eurojust-Council-Decision-2009-426-JHA-EN.pdf. 377 See Article 17(7) of the Framework Decision and Joined Cases C‑404/15, Aranyosi and C‑659/15 PPU, Caldӑrӑru [2016] para 99. 105