A European Investigation Order (EIO) is a mechanism established under EU law by which a judge or magistrate in one EU member state can make a binding request to the law enforcement agencies of another member state to collect evidence to assist in a criminal investigation. The order may authorise such actions as searches, wiretapping, surveillance, the subpoena of documents or records, etc. The mechanism exists throughout the EU, with the exception of Denmark and Ireland, who have opt-outs in this area of EU law.[1] The EIO was established by Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters.[2]
In considering the European Investigation Order it is important to examine why it exists and the rationale for adding yet another investigative measure to the existing cross-border investigative measures. Prior to the EIO there was Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA and this pertained to the mutual recognition of freezing orders for the purpose of securing evidence or subsequent confiscation of property.[3] The issue with this framework decision, however, was that there would need to be a separate request for the transferring of evidence to the issuing state.[4] There was also Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA which pertained to the European Evidence Warrant. This instrument allowed for the mutual recognition of judicial orders issued for the sake of obtaining objects, documents and data in order for them to be used in criminal proceedings.[5] The issue with this measure was that it only applied to already existing evidence and thus had a limited scope, outside of which the only measure available was the mutual legal assistance Procedure.[6] The result of these framework decisions was that the framework for collecting evidence was fragmented and complex. This fragmentation was discussed at the Stockholm Program by the European Council in 2009 where it was decided that there needed to be a comprehensive system based on mutual recognition for obtaining evidence in cross-border criminal cases. The answer to this fragmentation was thus the EIO.[7] The EIO replaced prior instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, namely Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2008/978/JHA.[8] The EIO aim is to facilitate and increase efficiency in cross-border criminal investigations by simplifying the process of evidence collection to combat transnational crime.[9]
The EIO is based on mutual recognition of judgements and judicial decisions concerning criminal matters as defined by Article 82(1) TFEU.[10] Mutual recognition has become the pillar of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and allows judgements or judicial decisions from other Member States to have the same level of force and effect as national jurisprudence, even if there is no prior recognition or recognition process. [11] Thereby, the enforcing state can be confident that the requesting authority has already verified the legality, necessity and proportionality of the requested measures. [12] Consequently, the principle requires Member States to recognize and execute EIOs from other Member States without re-evaluating the case on its merits.[13]
The EIO may be issued in relation to four types of proceedings:
− Criminal proceedings by a judicial authority pertaining to a criminal offense under the national law of the state issuing the EIO;
− Proceedings brought by an administrative authority or;
− Proceedings brought by a judicial authority for acts punishable under the national law of the state issuing the EIO where the infringement gives rise to proceedings in front of a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters.
− An EIO can be issued in relation to the first three types of proceedings which relate to offenses or infringements where a legal person can be held liable and punished in the issuing state.[14]
The EIO can serve as a less intrusive alternative for issuing a prosecution EAW. On the basis of an EAW, the defendant could be heard in the executing Member State, for instance by way of video conference, instead of surrendering them to the issuing Member States. For some investigative measures, Member States may require double criminality. However, as with the EAW, verification of double criminality is excluded when the EIO concerns a listed offence.[15] An important improvement of the EIO is the express provision that the defendant has the right to request the issuing of an EIO (for example, an EIO for hearing a defence witness in another Member State.) It must be pointed out, however, that EIO cannot be used for cross-border surveillance for the purpose of transfer of criminal proceedings.[16]
Implementation challenges
The inception of the EIO has led to somewhat of an uproar in the academic and legal communities. There has been some staple critique that the EIO is a prosecutorial instrument that does not afford a high standard of protection to human rights.[17] Some even went as far as arguing that the EIO’s inception was hasty, as it did not allow for experiences to be drawn from the European Arrest Warrant, and some said it was a patchwork solution in a fragmented frame of mutual recognition.[18] The main rule under article 21(1) is that the executing state shall bear all the costs of carrying out an EIO for the issuing state.[19] The underlying rationale is that costs operate based on a principle of reciprocity. However, certain countries[which?] are in a position where they execute much more EIOs than they issue, and certain countries[which?] may be tasked with carrying out a large scope investigation.[citation needed] Article 21(2) only suggest that Member States may consult how to share the costs or modify the EIO if the former is exceptionally high. [20]
There are some human rights challenges as well. Article 1(3) of the directive stipulates that the issuing of an EIO may be requested by a suspect, accused or a lawyer on his behalf. However, not all member states[which?] have implemented the directive to allow suspects/accused/their lawyers to request the issuing of an EIO for evidence in another country. This raises a challenge against the equality of arms which is guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights as a component of a fair trial. Article 4 of the Directive stipulates the type of proceedings for which an EIO could be issued, which includes administrative proceedings. This is problematic with regards to the rule of speciality, as an issuing state may request evidence for an administrative offence in the executing country but use it for criminal proceedings.[citation needed] The grounds of non-recognition or non-execution are laid out in Article 11 of the Directive are limited and are the basis on which an executing state may refuse an EIO.[21] This applies to the ne bis in idem rule among other things.
Another disparity of the right of the defence regards the right to, in an immediate and direct manner, challenge the issuing of an EIO. This right was not inherent when the Directive was drafted or went into force. Through interpretations and guidance by Eurojust, clarifications have been made over the years. However, when asked questions in a preliminary ruling of the Gavanozov case in 2019, the Court avoided answering regarding the direct legal status of suspects.[citation needed] In this case, The Bulgarian domestic court requested another preliminary ruling on this issue, which was delivered on 11 November 2021. In this decision, the Court explained the articles in accordance with ECtHR case law and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The inability to challenge the necessity and legality of a European Investigation Order carrying out searches and seizures in the issuing Member State constitutes a breach of Article 47 of the Charter. The issuing State must at least provide the opportunity to challenge the legality of the issued EIO at some stage in the investigation process. This possibility must both include review of the lawfulness of the measure instigated and the manner in which it was carried out. The issuing of EIOs will be disallowed when this minimum level of protection for the accused cannot be ensured by its national laws. The Court thus follows the recommendation given by the Advocate General Michal Bobek, who in this case advised that as long as the Bulgarian legislature does not remedy this situation, Bulgaria is in constant breach of fundamental rights and can therefore not take part in the mutual recognition scheme.
A further issue concerns the rights of the defence. It is not clear what the consequences are of any illegality in the execution of an EIO for the proceedings in the issuing member state, especially when the rights of the defence were not respected in the execution of an EIO, (for example, when the defendant is not able to question an incriminating witness.)
History
The Directive was proposed in April 2010, by a group of seven European Union Member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, Estonia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. The EIO would replace the existing legal framework applicable to the gathering and transfer of evidence between the member states. It proposed a procedure that would allow an authority in one member state (the "issuing authority") to request specific criminal investigative measures be carried out by an authority in another member state (the "executing authority"). The measure is based on the principle of mutual recognition established in article 82(1) of the TFEU. Article 82(1) stipulates that judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union shall be based upon the mutual recognition of judgements and judicial decisions. [22]
The EIO contained several significant innovations over existing procedures. The EIO focuses on the investigative measure to be executed, rather than on the type of evidence to be gathered. The EIO has a broad scope– all investigative measures are covered, except those explicitly excluded. In principle, the issuing authority decides on the type of investigative measure to be used. However, flexibility is introduced by allowing, in a limited number of cases, the executing authority to decide to have recourse to an investigative measure other than that provided for in the EIO. Clear time limits are provided for the recognition and, with more flexibility, for the execution of the EIO. The proposal also innovates by providing the legal obligation to execute the EIO with the same celerity and priority as for a similar national case. The EIO provides for the use of a form that should be used in all cases.
Compared to the European Evidence Warrant and to mutual legal assistance, the EIO provides for rationalisation of the grounds for refusal, and the right of the issuing authority to request that one or several of its officials assist in the execution of the measure in the executing State.[23]
In August 2010 the European Commission issued an opinion on the initiative, warning that it may be a system of evidence sharing without the safeguards provided by common admissibility standards.[24] In its opinion, the European Commission noted the advantages of the proposal– a simpler, unified system– if the system was backed by the appropriate procedural and fundamental rights standards.[25] At the time of the adoption of the opinion, Viviane Reding, the EU Justice Commissioner said that she would "ensure that the proposal respects the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights."
A general approach on the draft text was reached at the meeting of the Council in December 2011,[26] allowing the Council to negotiate with the European Parliament for the adoption of the measure. The rapporteur in the European Parliament was Nuno Melo[27] of the European People's Party.
The European Anti-Fraud Office is a body mandated by the European Union (EU) with protecting the Union's financial interests. It was founded on 28 April 1999, under the European Commission Decision 1999/352. Its tasks are threefold:
The European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) is an agency of the European Union (EU) dealing with judicial co-operation in criminal matters among agencies of the member states. It is seated in The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 2002, it was created to improve handling of serious cross-border and organised crime by stimulating investigative and prosecutorial co-ordination.
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a European Union directive in the field of intellectual property law, made under the Single Market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. The directive covers civil remedies only—not criminal ones.
The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) is an independent body of the European Union (EU) with juridical personality, established under the Treaty of Lisbon between 23 of the 27 states of the EU following the method of enhanced cooperation. The EPPO was established as a response to the need for a prosecutorial body to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the European Union (EU). The idea of establishing the EPPO gained momentum with a legislative proposal put forth by the European Commission in 2013. After lengthy negotiations and discussions within the European Council, the European Parliament and Member States, Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 was adopted on October 12, 2017, formalizing the creation of the EPPO. The EPPO Regulation is the EPPO's legal basis, as it outlines the objectives, structure, jurisdiction, and operational procedures. Directive (EU) 2017/1371, also known as the PIF Directive, specifies the criminal offenses affecting the EU's financial interest falling under the EPPO's jurisdiction. The EPPO's primary mandate is to investigate and prosecute offenses such as fraud, corruption, and money laundering that harm the financial interests of the EU, as defined by the PIF Directive. The EPPO represents a significant step towards a more integrated and effective approach to combating transnational crimes within the EU, fostering collaboration and coordination among member states to protect the Union's financial resources. As an independent EU body, the EPPO plays a crucial role in ensuring the rule of law and safeguarding the integrity of the EU's financial system. The EPPO is based in Kirchberg, Luxembourg City alongside the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period. It is a simplified cross-border judicial surrender method, and has replaced the lengthy extradition procedures that used to exist between member states. The EAW has been in force since 1 January 2004 in all Member States.
French law has a dual jurisdictional system comprising private law, also known as judicial law, and public law.
A framework decision was a kind of legislative act of the European Union used exclusively within the EU's competences in police and judicial co-operation in criminal justice matters. Framework decisions were similar to directives in that they required member states to achieve particular results without dictating the means of achieving that result. However unlike directives, framework decisions were not capable of direct effect, they were only subject to the optional jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and enforcement proceedings could not be taken by the European Commission for any failure to transpose a framework decision into domestic law.
Double criminality, or dual criminality, is a requirement in the extradition law and international prisoner transfers of many countries. It states that a suspect can be extradited from one country to stand trial for breaking a second country's law only if a similar law exists in the extraditing country, and that any crime in any sentencing country must also be a crime in any other country to receive any internationally transferred prisoners.
The area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) of the European Union (EU) is a policy domain concerning home affairs and migration, justice as well as fundamental rights, developed to address the challenges posed to internal security by collateral effects of the free movement of people and goods in the absence of border controls or customs inspection throughout the Schengen Area, as well as to safeguard adherence to the common European values through ensuring that the fundamental rights of people are respected across the EU.
The Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification (CVM) was a safeguard measure invoked by the European Commission when a new member or acceding state of the European Union failed to implement commitments undertaken in the context of the accession negotiations in the fields of the Area of freedom, security and justice or internal market policy. The European Commission has decided to not use CVM anymore. Instead, the Commission expects every new member to join the EU without deficiencies that would require special monitoring.
Mutual recognition occurs when two or more countries or other institutions recognize one another's decisions or policies, for example in the field of conformity assessment, professional qualifications or in relation to criminal matters. A mutual recognition agreement (MRA) is an international agreement by which two or more countries agree to recognize one another's conformity assessments, decisions or results. A mutual recognition arrangement is an international arrangement based on such an agreement.
The Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) is one of the configurations of the Council of the European Union and is composed of the justice and home affairs ministers of the 27 European Union member states.
The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the European Union (EU) member states which sets out the EU's constitutional basis. They establish the various EU institutions together with their remit, procedures and objectives. The EU can only act within the competences granted to it through these treaties and amendment to the treaties requires the agreement and ratification of every single signatory.
The Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, also known as the Strasbourg Convention or CETS 141, is a Council of Europe convention which aims to facilitate international co-operation and mutual assistance in investigating crime and tracking down, seizing and confiscating the proceeds thereof. The Convention is intended to assist States in attaining a similar degree of efficiency even in the absence of full legislative harmony.
Primary legislation and secondary legislation are two forms of law, created respectively by the legislative and executive branches of governments in representative democracies. Primary legislation generally consists of statutes, also known as 'acts', that set out broad principles and rules, but may delegate specific authority to an executive branch to make more specific laws under the aegis of the principal act. The executive branch can then issue secondary legislation, creating legally enforceable regulations and the procedures for implementing them.
A referendum on one of the country's opt-outs from the European Union was held in Denmark on 3 December 2015. Specifically, the referendum was on whether to convert Denmark's current full opt-out on home and justice matters into an opt-out with case-by-case opt-in similar to those held by Ireland and the United Kingdom. Approval of the referendum was needed for Denmark to remain in Europol under the new rules. However, it was rejected by 53% of voters.
Children's participation is a child's right to be heard in all matters affecting them, as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to Article 12 of the convention, children have the right to express their views in matters affecting them and their views have to be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. This right applies equally to children's participation in social and political matters as well as in judicial and administrative proceedings. As a general principle, the child's right to be heard reflects the concept of children's 'agency', viewing children not only as vulnerable persons in need of special protection, but also as informed decision makers, rights holders and active members of society.
The European Union (EU) negotiating directives are negotiating directives approved on 22 May 2017 and give authority to the Council of the European Union to negotiate with the United Kingdom (UK) regarding the exit of the UK from the EU (Brexit). Supplemental directives were added on 20 December 2017 based on the negotiations to that date.
The European (EU) Union Asset Recovery Offices (ARO) are national central contact points that facilitate EU-wide tracing of assets derived from crime.
↑ Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, para 3
↑ Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, para 4
↑ Council of the European Union, The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, 2 December 2009, pg 4, 21-23
↑ O’Neill, M. (2016) ‘The European Investigation Order, a new era in Cross Border Law Enforcement?’, European Journal of Policing Studies, 4(1), pp. 87–102. doi:10.5553/ejps/2034760x2016004001006.
↑ European investigation order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings Study of the proposal for a European directive By Prof. Dr. Lorena Bachmaier Winter
↑ Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, art 4
↑ Joint Note of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network on the practical application of the European Investigation Order June 2019
↑ B Schünemann, The Hurried and Uninformed Legislative Process. in Stefano Ruggeri (ed), Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe (Springer 2014) 34
↑ { B Schünemann, The Hurried and Uninformed Legislative Process. in Stefano Ruggeri (ed), Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe (Springer 2014) 34
↑ Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, article 21(1)
↑ Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, article 21(2)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
