Tamara

In a previous contribution to this blog Jan Stajnko and Mário Simões Barata commented the CJEU´s first ruling on the European Investigation Order (EIO) in Case C-324/17, Gavazonov, 24th October 2019, and pointed out to the fundamental rights objections in the Opinion of the Advocate General Yves Bot of 11 April 2019 and the criticisms expressed by legal scholars. The CJUE ruled that the national issuing authority does not have to include a description of the legal remedies available in the issuing State to challenge an EIO when it fills out Section J of the form that can be found in [...]

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’ [...]

Earlier this week, an article regarding the cross-border gathering of electronic evidence under the EIO-Directive was published in the University of Graz Law School’s Paper – Law@Graz. The idea behind publishing an article written by a student in a paper for students was to present the EIO-LAPD project to them, as well as interest them in this rather complex topic by writing about something that appeals to younger generations, namely the electronic evidence. The article tried to shed some light on the relevance of the EIO-Directive mirrored in substantive changes in the horizontal model of judicial cooperation it established, especially when [...]

In its judgement in joined cases C-508/18 (Parquet de Lübeck) and C‑82/19 PPU (Parquet de Zwickau) which was delivered on 27 May 2019, the European Court of Justice found that the German Public Prosecutor does not qualify as an “issuing judicial authority” within the meaning of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision defines the meaning of the term “issuing judicial authority” thereby determining which national authority may be considered competent to issue a EAW. Therefore, the Court concluded that the German Public Prosecutor may not be considered such an authority [...]

In Case C‑584/19, the Advocate General delivered his opinion (Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, 16 July 2020, C-584/19, Celex-No. 62019CC0584). At the heart of the case lies an EIO issued by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Hamburg, which requested the transfer of certain data from an account held in Austria. As the obtaining of such information under Austrian law requires a court authorization, the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office filed an application with the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Vienna (Austria). In view of the ECJ decision on the status of the German Public Prosecutor's Offices in the context of the European Arrest [...]

EIO-LAPD partners from University of Maribor and Jožef Stefan Institute have published an article in the 5th number of the Journal for Commercial Labour and Social Law, Volume 289, indexed by Worldwide Political Science Abstracts (WPSA). The article is dealing with the EIO Directive and the problems appearing in collecting cross border electronic evidence. It is a contribution from the work carried within the dissemination part of the EIO LAPD project. The article provides an exhaustive discussion and comments about important problems in the today’s interconnected society and crime investigation implemented with use of the EIO instruments. Based on a survey [...]