In 2004, Eurojust was consulted by the Netherlands in a fraud case involving Belgium and Germany, the two countries having concurrently issued a European arrest warrant against a Dutch national.1 Facing a potential conflict of jurisdiction, the Dutch judicial authorities chose to be advised by Eurojust before deciding which request they would grant. A few years later, in 2009, England and Wales (or more precisely the United Kingdom) were involved in the settlement of a positive conflict of jurisdiction in a drug trafficking case, with Spain and France.2 Once again, Eurojust contributed to the finding of a solution to this conflict by determining which judicial authority was in a better position to undertake investigations. These two examples illustrate the reality that states, in particular those that will be examined along this contribution, may face or be involved in positive conflicts of jurisdiction that need to be resolved.