Search results for: LF

Home » You searched for LF

Need a new search?

If you didn't find what you were looking for, try a new search!

The ECJ “Spetsializirana prokuratura” judgment: limiting the powers of public prosecutor to issue an EIO on the example of Croatia

By |2022-01-30T21:22:13+01:00January 30th, 2022|Blog, Uncategorized|

After the Staatsanwaltschaft Wien judgment (C-584/19) in December 2020, on 16 December 2021 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a second judgment dealing with the public prosecutor as an issuing authority of the European Investigation Order (EIO). In the Spetsializirana prokuratura judgment (C-724/19) the ECJ was dealing with the powers of public prosecutor to issue an EIO. In this case, the Bulgarian Public Prosecutor's Office, as the authorized authority to issue EIOs in the pre-trial phase of criminal proceedings under the Bulgarian Law on the European Investigation Order, on 15 August 2018 issued four EIOs to obtain traffic and location [...]

The Concept of Issuing Authority in the European Investigation Order

By |2022-01-20T11:06:29+01:00December 20th, 2021|Blog|

The concepts of “judicial authority” and “issuing authority” have been the subject of some discussions and interpretations by the Court of Justice of the European Union relative to the European Arrest Warrant. Having transposed Directive 2014/41/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 3 April 2014, which gave rise to Portuguese law nº 88/2017, of the 21st of August, we sought to find if the interpretation sustained by that Court applies to the EIO mechanism in the same limiting terms. The problem centred upon the question of the independence of the Public Ministry in relation to the executive branch. [...]

News on the on-going legislative processes on 2018 legislative proposals regarding electronic evidence in criminal matters

By |2021-09-09T12:00:57+01:00September 9th, 2021|Blog|

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, and Committee for Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has published in first half of  2021  the following briefing about the on-going legislative processes related to some aspects of EIO practice in connection with a request for  collecting  digital data in crime investigation: Electronic evidence in criminal matters OVERVIEW: In December 2020, the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee adopted its reports on a pair of 2018 legislative proposals on electronic evidence in criminal matters, and mandates to start trilogue negotiations on the two proposals. The proposed new rules would allow [...]

New Revelations from the Report on the implementation of Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters

By |2022-01-28T20:31:17+01:00August 2nd, 2021|Blog|

In July 2021, the Commission published the long-awaited Report on the implementation of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, COM(2021) 409 final. The Report is composed of five chapters: introduction, general assessment, specific points of assessment, data collection and conclusion. We are glad to report that the majority of findings from the commission reflect our own findings which can be found in the EIO-LAPD International Comparative Report. In this short contribution, we want to showcase an interesting point of divergence between both reports. This point [...]

The scope of the fundamental rights refusal ground

By |2022-01-05T20:32:26+01:00June 3rd, 2021|Blog, Uncategorized|

Art 11 para 1 point f EIO Directive explicitly formulates a ground for refusal of the recognition or execution of an incoming EIO due to a fundamental rights violation. This is a novelty compared to other European instruments of cross-border judicial cooperation. Accordingly, the executing state may refuse the recognition or execution of an EIO if it would violate Art 6 TEU or the CFR. This ground for refusal was adopted almost verbatim in the Austrian implementation law (§ 55a para 1 point 7 EU-JZG). The fundamental rights refusal ground is to be used restrictively in the system of mutual recognition [...]

International Comparative Report on the Application of the European Investigation Order

By |2022-01-28T20:23:54+01:00May 25th, 2021|Blog|

The EIO-LAPD research group is proud to announce that the comparative report which addresses key issues as well as best practices gathered from practitioners is now available. To gather this valuable information, we interviewed public prosecutors, investigative judges, attorneys and other practitioners in Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Portugal. We are glad to report that the EIO is a well-functioning and useful instrument of mutual recognition. The overall feedback from issuing and executing authorities was overwhelmingly positive and it was stated multiple times that the EIO is an instrument which is used on a daily basis since it significantly simplified [...]

Considerations regarding the Gavanozov II case before the CJEU

By |2021-03-29T14:57:00+01:00March 29th, 2021|Blog|

Considerations regarding the Gavanozov II case before the CJEU Scholars already pointed out on this blog that the EIO has far-reaching consequences for the protection of fundamental rights. It is a procedural legal instrument based on the principle of mutual recognition, aiming to enhance judicial cooperation between Member States in criminal matters. As such it necessarily has a nature of constricting human rights to a certain extent. This could be observed in the Gavanozov I case brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well. In the criminal proceedings brought against I. D. Gavanozov the Spetsializiran nakazatelen [...]

Request of the defence for the issuing of European investigation orders – a viable instrument or a paper tiger?

By |2022-01-28T20:32:49+01:00March 24th, 2021|Blog|

Directive 2014/41/EU does not include many provisions which directly address rights of the defence and the right to fair trial. There are however some concepts embedded in the Directive which seem to indirectly address the principle of equality of arms. What else could be the purpose of Article 1(3)? The issuing of an EIO may be requested by a suspected or accused person, or by a lawyer on his behalf, within the framework of applicable defence rights in conformity with national criminal procedure. However, the defence cannot use this article to use the resources of Member States to arbitrarily gather evidence [...]

ECJ Grand Chamber Judgment on the eligibility of prosecutors to issue European Investigation Orders (C-584/19)

By |2020-12-20T13:15:09+01:00December 20th, 2020|Blog, Uncategorized|

On 8th December 2020, the European Court of Justice ruled that public prosecutors' offices can still be judicial or issuing authorities within the meaning of Articles 1(1) and 2(c) of the Directive regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (EIO), ‘regardless of any relationship of legal subordination that might exist between the public prosecutor or public prosecutor’s office and the executive of that Member State and of the exposure of that public prosecutor or public prosecutor’s office to the risk of being directly or indirectly subject to orders or individual instructions from the executive when adopting a European investigation order’ [...]

Expected results

By |2021-11-30T21:03:44+01:00August 21st, 2019|

Project results Project results will be beneficial for all who are engaged in cross-border crime investigation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Meaning judges, investigative judges, public prosecutors, lawyers, police, defence lawyers and academics who are all dealing with evidence gathering and investigation procedures on a daily basis, however lack the experience and knowledge when investigation and gathering of evidence is performed outside their national jurisdiction and the help of another MS is needed. The project aims to benefit judges, lawyers, public prosecutors and others of all EU Member States that have implemented (or have yet to implement) [...]

Comments Off on Expected results