Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The EIO Proposal for a Directive and Mafia Trials: Striving for Balance Between Efficiency and Procedural Guarantees

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

  • 635 Accesses

Abstract

PD EIO could mark a turning point in the development of “European criminal procedure.”

The Proposal will obtain evidence in cross-border cases and is particularly suitable for investigations on the subject of international organized crime. From the long gestation period and the contents of the Proposal emerges, however, the difficulty of making a balance between the investigation of crimes and the guarantees of the individuals involved.

The use of collected of evidence from different legal systems is often an overly neglected aspect. Doubt surrounds the regulation of banking instruments, the rules on wiretapping, and all provisions for undercover investigations.

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.

    COM/2012/085 final—2012/0036 (COD) (12 March 2012). See Maugeri (2012), pp. 180ff.

  2. 2.

    COM(2011) 573 final (20 September 2011).

  3. 3.

    European Parliament Resolution (25 October 2011) on organized crime in the European Union (2010/2309 INI); Alfano and Varrica (2012), p. 4.

  4. 4.

    Institution of a special committee on the dissemination of criminal organisations which operate across borders, including mafias, one of whose aims will be to investigate the extent of the phenomenon and the negative social and economic impact it has throughout the EU, including the issue of the misappropriation of public funds by criminal organisations and mafias and their infiltration into the public sector; commission carefully to monitor the transposition by the Member States of the EU directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, to ensure that it is done promptly and effectively; the establishment of an EU forum of associations of victims’ families; eradicating entrenched mafia-style organised crime in the EU strengthen both the role of civil society and partnerships between civil society and the judicial system and the police.

  5. 5.

    One Commission, in cooperation with Europol and Eurojust, conducted a study by June 2013 to assess the negative impact of transnational organised crime in the European Union; calls on Europol to draw upon a thematic OCTA on the threat posed by the presence of mafia-type criminal organisations in the EU by 2012 (point 16).

  6. 6.

    On 15 August 2007, six men belonging to the ‘Ndrangheta clan were shot dead in their cars near the train station of Duirsburg in western Germany. Italian court, July 2011, sentenced the ringleader of the massacre Giovanni Strangio and other seven people to life terms for their role in the violent mob feud that culminated in the Duirsburg slayings. It was important collaboration between the Italian and German authorities during the investigation.

  7. 7.

    Pisani (1998), p. 703.

  8. 8.

    See Allegrezza (2008), pp. 3882–3883; Balsamo and Recchione (2010), p. 3620.

  9. 9.

    Ruggieri (2007), p. 551; Bargis (2004), p. 745; Lanzi et al. (2002), p. 3.

  10. 10.

    Sayers (2011) p. 3: “unfortunately, the PD EIO appears to be a myopic measure lacking in foresight or perspective. In detaching itself from the lessons learnt from the mutual recognition journey to date, and by ignoring the move to strengthen procedural protections”; Daraio (2013), p. 579.

  11. 11.

    Melillo (2006), p. 272, hops some type of vertical cooperation; Moscarini (2011), pp. 635ff.

  12. 12.

    Sayers (2011), pp. 12ff.; Marchetti (2011), pp. 164–165.

  13. 13.

    Council of the European Union, Resolution of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, OJ C 295/1, 4.12.2009.

  14. 14.

    During European Council, Stockholm Programme, Italian government officially suggested to introduce a true “principle of availability” of evidence open to procedural rights of the defense.

  15. 15.

    Pisani (2011), p. 935.

  16. 16.

    Eurojust opinion on EIO of 4 March 2011, pp. 1 f.

  17. 17.

    Amendment nr. 169 to Article 21 by Rosario Crocetta (AM Com Leg Report).

  18. 18.

    The EU FRA confirms that data protection with unlimited discretion leads to legal uncertainty. Thus, it is essential that the term “investigative measure” be defined, because the purpose for using the data needs to be clearly stipulated to ensure it is being used appropriately. See Opinion of the European Union’s Agency for Fundamental Rights on the draft Directive regarding the European Investigation Order, http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/opinions/op-eio_en.htm.

  19. 19.

    Eurojust Opinion on EIO, 4 March 2011, p. 6.

  20. 20.

    Bachmaier Winter, Part III, Sect. 4, considers that the wording and systematic of the PD EIO can be further improved, especially with regard to the possible grounds of non-recognition and non-execution of the European Investigation Order.

  21. 21.

    Ruggeri (2013), pp. 305–306.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Decision of 7 June 2007, Dupuis v Francia, Application no. 1914/02, § 49; ECtHR, Decision of 17 July 2003, Craxi v Italia, Application no. 25337/94, §§ 80 f.

  23. 23.

    The recommendations of the EDPS should be adopted. These include guaranteeing the accuracy of evidence (e.g., in relation to translations), the security of data and investigative security with electronic systems. The EDPS also recommends the creation of consistent professional standards and internal procedures to ensure the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and accountability systems. These recommendations require the application of adequate resources.

  24. 24.

    See EU FRA Opinion, above, fn. 18.

  25. 25.

    Eurojust Opinion on EIO, 4 March 2011, p. 12.

  26. 26.

    Amendment nr. 55 by Rosario Crocetta (Am Com Leg Report).

  27. 27.

    Observations of Italian delegation about the Proposal 13.12.2011.

  28. 28.

    For example, about confiscation, ECtHR, Decision of 10 Mai 2012, Soc. Sud Fondi v Italy, Application no. 75909/01, § 61 f., Italy has to restore the situation as a total elimination of the consequences of the measure.

References

  • Alfano A, Varrica A (eds) (2012) Per un contrasto europeo al crimine organizzato e alle mafie. La risoluzione del Parlamento Europeo e l’impegno dell’Unione Europea. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Allegrezza S (2008) L’armonizzazione della prova penale alla luce del Trattato di Lisbona. Cassazione penale 3882–3893

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsamo A, Recchione S (2010) La costruzione di un modello europeo di prova dichiarativa: il “nuovo corso” della giurisprudenza e le prospettive aperte dal Trattato di Lisbona. Cassazione penale 3620–3639

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargis M (2004) Il pubblico ministero nella prospettiva di un ordinamento europeo. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 745–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Daraio G (2013) La circolazione della prova nello spazio giudiziario europeo. In: Kalb L (ed) Spazio europeo di giustizia e procedimento penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, 579–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzi A, Ruggieri F, Camaldo L (2002) Il pubblico ministero europeo. Cedam, Padova

    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 materia penale nell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, Milano, 135–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Maugeri AM (2012) La proposta di direttiva UE in materia di congelamento e confisca dei proventi del reato: prime riflessioni. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed Aug 2013

  • Melillo G (2006) Il mutuo riconoscimento e la circolazione della prova. Cassazione penale 265–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscarini P (2011) Eurojust e il pubblico ministero europeo: dal coordinamento investigativo alle investigazioni coordinate. Diritto penale e processo 635–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisani M (1998) Criminalità organizzata e cooperazione internazionale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 703–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisani M (2011) Problemi di prova in materia di indagine penale. La proposta di direttiva sull’ordine di indagine europeo. Archivio penale 925–957

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri S (2013) Horizontal cooperation, obtaining evidence overseas and the respect for fundamental rights in the EU. From the European Commission’s proposal to the proposal for a Directive on a European Investigation Order: towards a single tool of evidence gathering in the EU? 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, 279–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggieri F (2007) Il pubblico ministero europeo. In: Rafaraci T (ed) L’area di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia: alla ricerca di un equilibrio fra priorità repressive ed esigenze di garanzia. Giuffrè, Milano, 551–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayers D (2011) The European Investigation Order travelling without a ‘roadmap’. CEPS 1–27. http://ceps.eu. Accessed Aug 2013

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department D.E.M.S., Law School, University of Palermo, Via Maqueda No. 172, Palermo, Italy

    Paola Maggio

Authors
  1. Paola Maggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paola Maggio .

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

Maggio, P. (2014). The EIO Proposal for a Directive and Mafia Trials: Striving for Balance Between Efficiency and Procedural Guarantees. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation