EU Anti-trafficking Coordinator: Trajectory of a Unique Mandate

  • Zoi SakelliadouEmail author
Living reference work entry


This article examines the development of the mandate and function of the Office of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator based in the European Commission. The analysis is situated in the broader EU legal and policy framework on trafficking in human beings, as part of the development of the area of freedom, security, and justice (“AFSJ”). The article examines the institutional dynamics of the AFSJ and their expression in the context of the EU anti-trafficking action and in particular how the Stockholm Programme and the legislative negotiations toward the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU influenced the creation of the mandate of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator. What was the trajectory to the establishment of this mandate? What were the institutional, political, and legal dynamics fuelling the process? The article is based largely on primary sources and publicly available transcripts of negotiations and parliamentary sessions, as literature on this subject is rather limited. Finally, the article briefly examines the main elements of the mandate in practice.


Coordinator AFSJ 


  1. Carrera, S., Hernanz, N., & Parkin, J. (2013). The ‘Lisbonisation’ of the European Parliament: Assessing progress, shortcomings and challenges for democratic accountability in the area of freedom, security and justice. Luxembourg: Publications OfficeGoogle Scholar
  2. Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2012). Does the Stockholm Programme matter? The struggles over ownership of AFSJ multiannual programming. CEPS Paper in Security and Liberty in Europe No. 51. Brussels: CEPS.Google Scholar
  3. Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2015). Implementing the Lisbon Treaty improving the functioning of the EU on justice and home affairs. Luxembourg: Publications Office.Google Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities. (2006). Second annual report on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external border controls, and the return of illegal residents. Commission Staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals SEC(2006) 1010. Brussels 19 July.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission. (2005). The Hague programme ten priorities for the next five years. Press release Memo/05/153, 10 May 2005. Retrieved 27 September, 2018 from
  6. Gallagher, A. (2006). Recent Legal Developments in the Field of Human Trafficking: A Critical Review of the 2005 European Convention and Related Instruments. European Journal of Migration and Law, 8(2), 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gallagher, A. (2010). The international law of human trafficking, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Lenaerts, K. (2010). The Contribution Of The European Court Of Justice To The Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice. International and Comparative Law Quarterly,59(2), 255–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Obokata, T. (2003). EU Council framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings: A critical appraisal. Common Market Law Review, 40(4), 917–936.Google Scholar
  10. Peers, S. (2011). Legislative Update EU Immigration and Asylum Law 2010: Extension of Long-term Residence Rights and Amending the Law on Trafficking in Human Beings. European Journal of Migration and Law, 13(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimiter Toshkov and Anne Rasmussen (2012): ‘Time to Decide: The effect of early agreements on legislative duration in the EU’, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Vol. 16, Article 11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, European CommissionBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations