Bachmaier, Lorena, ‘Transnational Evidence. Towards the Transposition of Directive 2014/41 Regarding the European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters’ (2015) 2 Eucrim, The European Criminal Law Association’s Forum 47–58.
De Capitani, E, Peers, Steve; ‘The European Investigation Order: A new approach to mutual recognition in criminal matters’ Eulawanalysis (January 8, 2016) http://eulawanalysis.blogspot. pt/2014/05.
Kusak, Martyna, ‘Mutual admissibility of evidence and the European investigation order: aspirations lost in reality’ (2019) 19 ERA Forum 391–400.
Parry, John T., ‘International extradition, the rule of non-inquiry and the problem of sovereignty’ (2010) 90 Boston University Law Review 1973–2029.
Peers, Steve, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law. Volume II: EU Criminal Law, Policing and Civil Law (Volume II, Oxford 2016) 115–250.
Ravasi, Elisa, Human rights protection by the ECtHR and the ECJ. A comparative analysis in light of the equivalency doctrine (Brill 2017) 143–389.
Ruggeri, Stefano (ed.), Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Springer 2013) 27–40; 241–310.
Törő, Andrea, Bizonyíték-transzfer az európai bűnügyi együttműködésben – különös tekintettel az európai nyomozási határozatra [Transfer of evidence in the European cooperation in criminal matter with special regard to the European Investigation Order]. (2014 University of Szeged, Manuscript).
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
)| false , Bizonyíték-transzfer az európai bűnügyi együttműködésben – különös tekintettel az európai nyomozási határozatra [ Törő, Andrea Transfer of evidence in the European cooperation in criminal matter with special regard to the European Investigation Order]. ( 2014 University of Szeged, Manuscript).
Schünemann, Bernd, ‘The European Investigation Order: A Rush into the Wrong Direction’ in Ruggeri, Stefano (ed) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe (Heidelberg, N.Y., 2014) 29–35.
van Hoek, Aukje A.H. and Luchtman, Michiel J.J.P., ‘Transnational cooperation in criminal matters and the safeguarding of human rights’. (2005) 2 Utrecht Law Review 1–39.
Vermeulen, Gert, ‘EU conventions enhancing and updating traditional mechanisms for judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ (2006) 77 Revue internationale de droit pénal 59–96.
Vermeulen, Gert, De Bondt, Wivian and Van Damme, Yvonne, EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters. Towards mutual recognition of investigative measures and free movement of evidence? (Maklu 2010) 43–126.
Vermeulen, Gert, De Bondt, Wivian and Ryckman, Cryer (eds), Rethinking international cooperation in criminal matters in the EU. Moving beyond actors, bringing logic back, footed in reality (Maklu 2012) 105–386.
Vervaele, John A.E., European Criminal Justice in the Post-Lisbon Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Università degli Studi di Trento 2014) 139–66.
Often used as abbreviation MLA.; In different languages, these two words could have different national meanings, but if it is used for describing one of the tools of international cooperation in criminal matters, they can have identical content. However, if the context is beyond European language use – e.g. UN level – the following differentiation shall be made, as it explained by the UN Model Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters: Mutual assistance is not judicial assistance. In civil law countries, and under some other legal systems, investigations are conducted under judicial supervision and are therefore regarded as proceedings even though at the time of those judicially supervised investigations a suspect who has not been arrested may not be aware of the charge against him or her, or even be known. Under the common law heritage, however, the investigation stage is generally conducted by police independent of the judiciary. With rare exception, it is only when the investigation is complete, and the person is charged before a judicial officer that proceedings commence. For countries in which civil law operates and where investigations are judicially supervised, requests for assistance can be made, under this interpretation, even at the investigation stage, by way of letter rogatory from the supervising judicial officer to his or her judicial colleagues in other jurisdictions and can therefore be properly termed ‘judicial assistance’. For most common law countries, however, requests cannot be made by a judicial authority during the investigation stage as there is no judicial officer involved until formal proceedings are commenced. Moreover, the term ‘mutual assistance’ is used in some systems to describe international cooperation generally covering police to police cooperation, extradition, and transfer of prisoners as well. In other states it is considered that the term ‘mutual legal assistance’ is too limited equating to ‘judicial’ assistance between judicial authorities only.’ http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/model_treaty_ extradition_revised_manual.pdf 67.
For instance: witnesses to be heard are abroad; the evidence is located in the territory of other state; criminal assets have been transferred to foreign country; exchange of judicial information; interrogation of experts; search and seizure, tapping, controlled delivery; exchange of bank information; freezing of bank accounts etc.
Vermeulen (2006) 41.
Parry (2010) 2024.
Klimek (2012) 252.
Vervaele (2014) 149.
In analogy to the aut dedere aut exequi principle; tolerating the activity of foreign authorities on the territory is already known and widely accepted in the context of e.g. joint investigation teams. See more Vermeulen, De Bondt and Ryckman (2012) 33.
Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.’ OJ C 197 of 12.7.2000; Council Act of 29 May 2000 establishing in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union OJ C 197 of 12.7.2000.
Törő (2014) 134.
Vermeulen (2006) 71.
However, a study proved that such complaints are not so frequent as it was discussed in the negotiations for the reform of the regime of forum regit actum. See more Vermeulen – De Bondt – Van Damme (2010) 27: ‘Considering the importance of admissibility of the gathered information/ evidence in the course of criminal proceedings in the requesting/issuing member state, several instruments foresee the possibility to expressly indicate that the requested/ordered member state in the execution of the measure, should comply with certain formalities and procedures (e.g. compliance with certain formalities and procedures, purpose or use limitations etc). Interestingly, 60% (cluster 3 and 5) up to 70% (cluster 6) of the member states indicate to be willing to accept a forum regit actum regime.’
Kusak (2019) 394.
‘The EIO Directive appears to be a serious attempt to provide the EU with a modern set of rules for the cross-border transfer of evidence, which is a key aspect of the day-to-day work of practitioners involved in crimes with an international dimension. It balances a streamlined process (such as inclusion of time limits for replying to requests) with a number of important safeguards, as regards the grounds for refusal, the validation of requests from police officers, the proportionality requirement, and the broad list of grounds for refusal, including comparatively string human rights exception.’ Peers (2016); See some basic literature: Bachmaier (2015); De Capitani (2016), Schünemann (2014), Ruggeri (2013), Kusak (2019).
See the latest report on it: Case Law by the European Court of Human Rights of Relevance for the Application of the European Conventions on International Co-Operation in Criminal Matters. Strasbourg, 5.12.2018; PC-OC (2011) 21 REV 12.
See the case law on it (milestones decisions: Case 29/69 Stauder  ECR 419; Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft  ECR 1125; Case 4/73 Nold  ECR 491.
However, in 2005, in the Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland (no. 45036/98) judgment, the ECtHR stated that where a State transferred sovereign powers to an international organisation, absolving contracting states completely from their Convention responsibility in the areas covered by such a transfer would be incompatible with the purpose and object of the ECHR; the guarantees of the ECHR could be limited or excluded at will, thereby depriving it of its peremptory character and undermining the practical and effective nature of its safeguards. For the first time the ECtHR examined on the merits a complaint concerning measures taken to give effect to Community law where the EU MS had no margin of appreciation. See more references: Case-law concerning the European Union, 2019. Factsheet. Published at https://www.echr.coe.int. See some basic literature: Ravasi (2017), DouglasScott (2017).
Already happened with the Gavanosov case (C-324-17). The opinion of the Avocat General Bot has been published on 11th April 2019, and the referring Bulgarian court would like to know about the possibility of issuing EIO under national law which does not provide any legal remedy against a court decision issuing a European investigation order (for search) meanwhile the directive in Article 14(2) grants the right to challenge a court decision issuing a European investigation order. In this case the eventual direct effect of the directive could be at stake and furthermore important steps could be made in interpreting definitions of the EIO directive (‘concerned party’, ‘witness’, ‘third party’).
Mentioned for the first time by the Tampere Council Resolutions, in 1999; as following: ‘36. The principle of mutual recognition should also apply to pre-trial orders, in particular to those which would enable competent authorities quickly to secure evidence and to seize assets which are easily movable; evidence lawfully gathered by one Member State’s authorities should be admissible before the courts of other Member States, taking into account the standards that apply there.’ Some basic literature: Klimek (2012), Ruggeri (2014), Vervaele (2014).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – COM(2009) 262.
Kusak (2019) 29.
The reference goes to the project of Szeged City (Hungary) on the seamless transition from an inner-city tram-trip to a regional train journey between Szeged and Hódmezővásárhely.
This research was carried out in the project no. EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00007, entitled ‘Aspects on the development of intelligent, sustainable and inclusive society: social, technological, innovation networks in employment and digital economy’, supported by the European Union, co-financed by the European Social Fund and the budget of Hungary.