Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction to the Proposal of a European Investigation Order: Due Process Concerns and Open Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe

Abstract

The draft Directive on a European Investigation Order, launched by eight Member States in 2010, constitutes the last step in a long path towards the creation of a European regulation on the collection of evidence abroad. The complex structure of the proposed instrument, aimed both at conducting investigations overseas and obtaining evidence which is already in the possession of the executing State, reveals a new way of providing mutual recognition, combined with the flexibility of the MLA system. Despite its ambitious goals and the announced innovations, this instrument provides a complicated combination of fairly old solutions, which does not allow a proper balance to be achieved between the efficiency of transnational prosecution and the protection of human rights, and therefore does not satisfy the need for a fair investigative procedure in transnational cases. This introductory study provides a critical view of the main general and specific issues of the draft proposal, focusing on some due process concerns and unresolved issues of the new instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Amongst the many researches and studies conducted in this field, see Vervaele (2005), Gleß (2006), and Illuminati (2009).

  2. 2.

    For the first version of the project, see Delmas-Marty (1997), passim. The project was then revised and published in 2000 in Delmas-Marty and Vervaele (2000), passim.

  3. 3.

    Tampere Conclusions, point 36.

  4. 4.

    COM (2001) 715 final, point 6.3.4.1. On this topic see Allegrezza, Part II, Sect. 3.1.

  5. 5.

    Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters [COM/2003/0688 final].

  6. 6.

    COM (2009) 624 final.

  7. 7.

    The Stockholm Programme—an open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (2010/C 115/01).

  8. 8.

    COM (2010) 171 final.

  9. 9.

    Interinstitutional File: 2010/0817 (COD), COPEN 115 EJN 12 CODEC 363 EUROJUST 47.

  10. 10.

    See doc. 18918/11, COPEN 369 EJN 185 CODEC 2509 EUROJUST 217.

  11. 11.

    See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120614IPR46824/html/EP-suspends-cooperation-with-Council-on-five-justice-and-home-affairs-dossiers.

  12. 12.

    Interinstitutional File: 2010/0817 (COD), COPEN 245 EJN 83 CODEC 2643 EUROJUST 100.

  13. 13.

    See, among others, Spencer (2010), p. 604.

  14. 14.

    Accompanying Document to the Proposal for a Council Directive regarding an European Investigation Order in criminal matters, Detailed Statement, 9288/10 ADD 2, COPEN 117 EJN 185 CODEC 384 EUROJUST 217, § 3.1.2.

  15. 15.

    See already doc. 8474/11, COPEN 67 EJN 13 CODEC 550 EUROJUST 49 PARLNAT 13.

  16. 16.

    Bachmaier Winter (2010), p. 583.

  17. 17.

    The Stockholm Programme (footnote 7), § 3.1.1.

  18. 18.

    Gleß (2011b), p. 599.

  19. 19.

    Allegrezza (2010), p. 570.

  20. 20.

    Amongst them, cf. the Preliminary Report by Wade (2011) on the Euroneeds-Project, undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law.

  21. 21.

    Bachmaier Winter (2010), p. 589.

  22. 22.

    Resolution of the Council of 30th November 2009 (2009/295/01).

  23. 23.

    Accompanying Document (footnote 14), § 1.

  24. 24.

    This topic has been discussed in detail by Belfiore, Part III, Sect. 4.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 5.

  26. 26.

    On the cultural shift from a interstate, bi-dimensional to a tri-dimensional, human rights-oriented conception of international cooperation, see Schomburg et al. (2012), pp. 2ff.

  27. 27.

    On the joint responsibility for the respect of human rights in transnational procedures, cf. Vogel (2012), Vor § 1, pp. 54ff.

  28. 28.

    Cf., on this topic, Gropp (2012), pp. 41ff.

  29. 29.

    On this topic, see, among others, Bachmaier Winter (2013), pp. 85ff.

  30. 30.

    Furthermore, as under Article 29 the PD EIO aims at replacing the corresponding provisions laid down in previous judicial assistance instruments, it could be argued that Article 4 ECMACM, which allows for private parties to be present in the execution of the rogatory letters, should analogously be applied to the collection of evidence with the EIO. Along these lines, see Marchetti (2011), pp. 163f. This interpretation cannot, in my view, be shared. It would firstly run counter to the general approach of this draft proposal, which aims to provide a comprehensive new way of conducting investigations abroad. Moreover, this solution would apply only within the scope of application of the 1959 ECMACM, i.e., only in the field of transnational procedures in criminal matters.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Ruggeri (2012), pp. 153ff.

  32. 32.

    Gleß (2011a), p. 89.

  33. 33.

    See, in Spain, Supreme Tribunal, judgement of 5 May 2003 (ROJ 3023/2003). On this topic, cf. Gascón Inchausti (2013), p. 484.

  34. 34.

    On the application of foreign law in the field of criminal law, see Cornils (1978), passim.

  35. 35.

    Significantly, outside Europe, the IACMACM strengthened this possibility allowing officials and private parties of the home State not only to be present but furthermore to take part in the execution of letters rogatory (Art. 16).

  36. 36.

    See, e.g., Art. 8 SAP ECMACM.

  37. 37.

    This is the main limitation of this domestic regulation, which has a very limited scope of application since Italy has no general legislative framework for applying the most advanced instruments of MLA. On this topic, see Caprioli (2013), pp. 449f.

  38. 38.

    On this issue, see Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 4.

  39. 39.

    This would happen, for instance, where Italian authorities request the transcription of telecommunications following the formalities (especially the procedure laid down for expert evidence) provided for by Article 268(5) and (6) it. CCP.

  40. 40.

    See, for example, Art. 10(2) IACMACM.

  41. 41.

    See, for example, Art. 6 UN MTMACM.

  42. 42.

    Among others, see the four models outlined by Van Hoek and Luchtman (2005), p. 28. For a different approach, cf. Ruggeri (2013), pp. 533ff.

  43. 43.

    See Marchetti (2011), p. 163.

  44. 44.

    See doc. 10749/11 REV 2, COPEN 130 EJN 70 CODEC 914 EUROJUST 85, p. 3.

  45. 45.

    On this issue, see, in detail, Bachmaier Winter, Part III, Sect. 3.2.

  46. 46.

    In this regard, see Caprioli (2013), pp. 451ff.

  47. 47.

    On this topic, see recently Ruggeri (2012), pp. 147ff.

  48. 48.

    Cf., among others, Amelung (1976).

  49. 49.

    Along these lines, see Kühne (2010), p. 248.

  50. 50.

    In this regard, see Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 1.2.1.

  51. 51.

    On the international division of labours (international Arbeitsteilung), see Schomburg et al. (2012), pp. 28ff.

  52. 52.

    Draft European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters [09288/2010—C7-0185/2010—2010/0817(COD)], amended Article 13(4) PD EIO.

  53. 53.

    See Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 1.2.1.

  54. 54.

    Draft European Parliament Legislative Resolution (footnote 44), amended Article 13(5) PD EIO.

  55. 55.

    Such a comparative evaluation is required according to a provision originally introduced in May 2011 into a new paragraph 5a of Article 13 (doc. 10749/11 REV 2, COPEN 130 EJN 70 CODEC 914 EUROJUST 85) and then transposed to Article 12, a provision according to which “The executing authority may suspend the transfer of the evidence, pending the decision regarding a legal remedy, unless sufficient reasons are indicated in the EIO that an immediate transfer is essential for the proper conduct of its investigations or the preservation of individual rights.” The position of this rule, albeit related to the transfer of evidence, in the context of Article 12, unlike that of the December 2011 text, was to be preferred, since it aimed to regulate the effects of the remedy on the transfer of evidence.

  56. 56.

    On the transcultural criminal law, see Vogel (2010), pp. 1ff.

  57. 57.

    The chapter contributions contained in this book have been quoted with the only reference to the Author’s surname, the Part in which the contribution is contained and the number of the paragraph concerned.

References

The chapter contributions contained in this book have been quoted with the only reference to the Author’s surname, the Part in which the contribution is contained and the number of the paragraph concerned.

  • Allegrezza S (2010) Critical remarks on the green paper on obtaining evidence from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9:569–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Amelung K (1976) Rechtsschutz gegen strafprozessuale Grundrechtseingriffe. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2010) European investigation order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings. Study of the proposal of a European directive. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9:580–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2013) The role of the proportionality principle in cross-border investigations involving fundamental rights. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 85–110

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caprioli F (2013) Report on Italy. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings, A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 439–455

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cornils K (1978) Die Fremdrechtsanwendung im Strafrecht. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (ed) (1997) Introducing penal provisions for the purpose of the financial interests of the European Union. Editions Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M, Vervaele JAE (eds) (2000) The implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Gascón Inchausti F (2013) Report on Spain. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelburg, pp 475–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S (2006) Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S (2011a) Internationales Strafrecht – Grundriss für Studium und Praxis. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S (2011b) Europäische Beweisanordnung. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, von Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 596–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropp W (2012) Kollision nationaler Strafgewalten – nulla prosecutio transnationalis sine lege. In: Sinn A (ed) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitend organisierter Kriminalität. V&R Unipress, Osnabrück, pp 41–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Illuminati G (ed) (2009) Prova penale e Unione europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne H-H (2010) Strafprozessrecht. Eine Systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Strafverfahrensrechts. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti MR (2011) Dalla Convenzione di assistenza giudiziaria in materia penale dell’Unione europea al mandato europeo di ricerca delle prove e all’ordine europeo di indagine penale. In: Rafaraci T (ed) La cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria in material penale nell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 135–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri S (2012) Investigative powers affecting fundamental rights and principles for a fair transnational procedure in criminal matters. A proposal of mutual integration in the multicultural EU area. Crimen 2:147–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri S (2013) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in comparative law. Models of gathering overseas evidence in criminal matters. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings, A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 533–573

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T (2012) Einleitung. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T (eds) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, München, pp 2–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer S (2010) The green paper on obtaining evidence from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility: the reaction of one British lawyer. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9:602–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoek AAH, Luchtman MJJP (2005) Transnational cooperation in criminal matters and the safeguarding of human rights. Utrecht Law Rev 1:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervaele JAE (ed) (2005) European evidence warrant. Transnational judicial inquiries in the EU. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J (2010) Transkulturelles Strafrecht. Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 157(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J (2012) Vor § 1. In: Grützner G, Pötz P-G, Kreß C (eds) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 4th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 1–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade M (2011) EuroNEEDs. Evaluating the need for and the needs of a European Criminal Justice System. http://www.mpicc.de/shared/data/pdf/euroneeds_report_jan_2011.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Messina, Piazza Pugliatti No. 1, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Authors
  1. Stefano Ruggeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Ruggeri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Law "T. Martines", University of Messina, Messina, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruggeri, S. (2014). Introduction to the Proposal of a European Investigation Order: Due Process Concerns and Open Issues. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation