Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-Border Investigations Under the EPPO Proceedings and the Quest for Balance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Public Prosecutor's Office

Abstract

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation provides for a system of cooperation in cross-border evidence gathering based on the assignment of investigative measures to the assisting European Delegated Prosecutor. This will undoubtedly facilitate the obtaining and transmission of cross-border evidence in EPPO proceedings, although this system will have to be complemented with the other instruments of judicial cooperation in criminal matters as not all Member States will participate in the EPPO system. The aim of this contribution is to address some of the pending challenges in these cross-border investigations. First, I will discuss the rules provided in the EPPO Regulation and analyse them vis a vis the legal framework provided by the Directive on the European Investigation Order. And secondly, I will address the protection of the right to legal assistance in transnational criminal proceedings of the EPPO. While procedural safeguards are not regulated in the EPPO Regulation (it merely refers to the applicable EU Directives), I will argue that the minimum rights granted under the Directive on Access to a Lawyer cannot be deemed sufficient to ensure the position of the defence in EPPO proceedings in view of the principle of equality of arms.

Lorena Bachmaier Winter is Full Professor at the Complutense University Madrid.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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.

    See the results of the project “Euroneeds: Evaluating the need for and the needs of a European Criminal Justice System”, of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, accessible at http://www.mpicc.de/shared/data/pdf/euroneeds_report_jan_2011.pdf. On the same see extensively Wade (2013), pp. 439–486. Although recent cases on the EAW—dealing with political crimes—have shown that not only delays may become a problem in cooperation among the EU Member States, the delays are still by far the more salient problem in the enforcement of EAWs.

  2. 2.

    See Bachmaier Winter (2012), p. 1213; Rheinbay (2014), pp. 60 ff.

  3. 3.

    For a detailed and comprehensive study on the principles and problems of to cross-border evidence, see Gless (2007).

  4. 4.

    Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, OJ L 198, 28.7.2017. For a short summary on the evolution of the EPPO project from the Corpus Iuris to the present Regulation, see e.g. Kuhl (2017), pp. 135–143. On the extension of the EPPO’s competence to related offences, see Nieto & Morales (2015), pp. 122 ff.

  5. 5.

    On the different possible models of the structure of the EPPO see, among others, Vervaele (2010), pp. 171–200; Zwiers (2011), pp. 355 ff.; Ligeti and Simonato (2013), pp. 15 ff.; White (2013), pp. 22–39; Csuri (2012), pp. 79–83. The different models are subject to a detailed cost-benefit assessment in the Commission Staff Working Document “Impact Assessment”, accompanying the PR EPPO, pp. 30 ff., and in the Annex 4 of that document.

  6. 6.

    Already stated by Bachmaier Winter (2015a), pp. 127 and 131. Although it has to be recalled that many of the PIF offences present an exclusively national dimension.

  7. 7.

    As stated by Ligeti and Weyembergh (2015), pp. 74–75.

  8. 8.

    In this sense Morán Martínez (2009), pp. 6 ff., opting clearly for the model that has now been adopted in the PR EPPO of July 2013. Contrary, Nieto et al. (2013), p. 800, who consider that “the hierarchy does not always imply greater efficiency insofar as it can generate numerous tensions”.

  9. 9.

    For a critical approach towards the establishment of an EPPO via enhanced cooperation, see, Satzger (2015), p. 78. In any event, the non-participating Member States shall apply the EIO Directive and follow the principles of loyal cooperation and solidarity enshrined in Articles 4(3) and 3(3) TEU.

  10. 10.

    See Di Francesco (2017), pp. 156–160, p. 157.

  11. 11.

    In addition the substantive law on PIF offences is neither uniform, as it depends on how the EU Directive is implemented in the Member States. On the need for approximation, see also Kaiafa-Gbandi (2013), pp. 87 ff.

  12. 12.

    Csonka et al. (2017), p. 125 on the difficulties of the EPPO negotiations. See also Zwiers (2011), p. 245. Additionally to the legal consequences, the enhanced cooperation has also budgetary and administrative implications, as pointed out by Schutte (2015), pp. 205–206.

  13. 13.

    Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), OJ L 283, 31.10.2017.

  14. 14.

    See already Bachmaier Winter (2015a), p. 133. For Negri (2017), p. 151, this system might entail excessive complexity for the EPPO to achieve its objectives.

  15. 15.

    Despite efforts to keep the “double hat” model and maintain the position of the European Public Prosecutor alongside the national prosecutor, compatibility between the two may be sometimes difficult to implement in practice. In the same sense, for example, Ligeti and Simonato (2013), p. 15.

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Nestler (2006), pp. 415 ff.; Gless (2013), pp. 91 ff.; Allegrezza (2013), p. 8; Rafaraci (2013), pp. 331–343; Buric (2016), pp. 63–90.

  17. 17.

    Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, OJ 6.11.2013, L294/1.

  18. 18.

    As explained by Vervaele (2013), pp. 25–27, in PIF investigations and in general in economic and financial crimes, there is often a previous administrative investigation by diverse authorities, usually gathering accounting and fiscal data. And as stated by Negri (2017), pp. 161 ff., the criminal investigations rely greatly on how the information gathered in such administrative proceedings is transferred to the EPPO. In the same sense, Kuhl (2017), p. 141.

  19. 19.

    I fully agree with Ruggeri (2014), pp. 221–225, when he states that the problems in cross-border investigations cannot be addressed separately from the issue of the choice of forum. Nevertheless in this chapter I focus only on cross-border evidence gathering, without addressing the broader discussion of models of cooperation and the choice of forum. On the choice of forum, see extensively Panzavolta in this volume.

  20. 20.

    As Ligeti (2013), p. 19, put it, albeit regarding the Proposal for a Regulation of 2013, the Regulation makes the EPPO “prisoner of national laws” See also Zerbes (2015), p. 219; Kuhl (2017), p. 139. On the negotiations regarding cross-border investigation of the EPPO and the assignment system, although with regard to the text before the adoption of the EPPO Regulation, see Herrnfeld (2017), pp. 382–412, pp. 402 ff.

  21. 21.

    Article 9 EPPO Regulation.

  22. 22.

    Article 30.1 EPPO Regulation: “1. At least in cases where the offence subject to the investigation is punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 4 years of imprisonment, Member States shall ensure that the European Delegated Prosecutors are entitled to order or request the following investigation measures:

    1. (a)

      search any premises, land, means of transport, private home, clothes and any other personal property or computer system, and take any conservatory measures necessary to preserve their integrity or to avoid the loss or contamination of evidence;

    2. (b)

      obtain the production of any relevant object or document either in its original form or in some other specified form;

    3. (c)

      obtain the production of stored computer data, encrypted or decrypted, either in their original form or in some other specified form, including banking account data and traffic data with the exception of data specifically retained in accordance with national law pursuant to the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

    4. (d)

      freeze instrumentalities or proceeds of crime, including assets, that are expected to be subject to confiscation by the trial court, where there is reason to believe that the owner, possessor or controller of those instrumentalities or proceeds will seek to frustrate the judgement ordering confiscation.

    5. (e)

      intercept electronic communications to and from the suspect or accused person, over any electronic communication means that the suspect or accused person is using;

    6. (f)

      track and trace an object by technical means, including controlled deliveries of goods.”

    On the rules on these measures in the EPPO Regulation Proposal of 2013, see Moreno Catena (2014), pp. 76–84.

  23. 23.

    Csonka et al. (2017), p. 129, call this as a sui generis system, away from the mutual legal assistance regime, as it entails the obligation to execute the assigned measure.

  24. 24.

    For this, see Alegrezza and Mosna, in this volume.

  25. 25.

    There is an abundant literature on the EIO. See, for example, Bachmaier Winter (2015b), pp. 47–59; Ruggeri (2014).

  26. 26.

    See Salazar (2017), p. 330; Di Francesco (2017), pp. 157 and 159.

  27. 27.

    On the grounds for refusal under the EIO system see extensively, Bachmaier Winter (2014a; b), pp. 71 ff.; Mangiaracina (2014), p. 116 ff.

  28. 28.

    Article 28.4.: “In exceptional cases, after having obtained the approval of the competent Permanent Chamber, the supervising European Prosecutor may take a reasoned decision to conduct the investigation personally, either by undertaking personally the investigation measures and other measures or by instructing the competent authorities in his/her Member State, where this appears to be indispensable in the interest of the efficiency to the investigation or prosecution by reasons of one or more of the following criteria:

    (a) the seriousness of the offence, in particular in view of its possible repercussions at Union level; (b) when the investigation concerns officials or other servants of the Union or members of the institutions of the Union; (c) in the event of failure of the reallocation mechanism provided for in paragraph 3.

    In such exceptional circumstances Member States shall ensure that the European Prosecutor is entitled to order or request investigative measures and other measures and that he/she has all the powers, responsibilities and obligations of a European Delegated Prosecutor in accordance with this Regulation and national law.

    The competent national authorities and the European Delegated Prosecutors concerned by the case shall be informed without undue delay of the decision taken under this paragraph.”

  29. 29.

    In the same sense, Herrnfeld (2017), p. 406.

  30. 30.

    See also, Herrnfeld (2017), p. 404.

  31. 31.

    It has to be underlined that the Regulation has avoided to use the term “executing State” and has chosen to refer to the “Member State of the assisting EDP”, perhaps to emphasize that this cooperation mechanism is different from the one envisaged in the EIO. Be that as it may, as this is the State where the measure is executed, I do not think it is incorrect to call it a State of execution.

  32. 32.

    See Bachmaier Winter (2017a), pp. 1–27.

  33. 33.

    On this subject, see Bachmaier Winter (2017b), pp. 313–336.

  34. 34.

    This minimal harmonization will also be limited, as it will not affect the Member States not participating in the enhanced cooperation. At the moment of writing this chapter five Member States (Hungary, Malta, Poland, Sweden and the Netherlands) are not participating on the EPPO. However The Netherlands has already expressed its intention to join the enhanced cooperation during the Informal meeting of the JHA Council held in Sofia on 25–26 January 2018.

  35. 35.

    Bachmaier Winter (2017b), pp. 330–334.

  36. 36.

    Article 31.1 DEIO: “Where, for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure, the interception of telecommunications is authorised by the competent authority of one Member State (the ‘intercepting Member State’) and the communication address of the subject of the interception specified in the interception order is being used on the territory of another Member State (the ‘notified Member State’) from which no technical assistance is needed to carry out the interception, the intercepting Member State shall notify the competent authority of the notified Member State of the interception.”

  37. 37.

    For a critical analysis on the protection of fundamental rights in the EPPO proceedings see Illuminati in this volume; and also Ruggeri. On the fundamental rights of suspects and accused in criminal proceedings in the EU and the long way until the approval of the Directives in this field, see, among others, Cape et al. (2007), pp. 23 ff.; Bachmaier Winter (2007), pp. 41–69; Arangüena (2007); Hoyos Sancho (2008), pp. 42–78.

  38. 38.

    See Costa (2016), pp. 398 ff.

  39. 39.

    For the relationship of the content of this Directives and the rights recognised under the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR see specifically, Wahl (2017), pp. 311–333.

  40. 40.

    On the legislative process and the content of this Directive, see, Anagnostopoulos (2014), p. 3 ff.; Bachmaier Winter (2015c), pp. 111–131; Durdevic (2016), pp. 9–23, p. 18 ff.; Moreno Catena (2014), pp. 102–108.

  41. 41.

    On the criteria for identifying when there is an “interest of justice” in granting the right to free legal assistance see the ECtHR judgment Quaranta v. Switzerland, of 24 May 1991, Appl. No. 12744/87.

  42. 42.

    Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, OJ L 297, 4.11.2016.

  43. 43.

    See, Imbroscia v. Switzerland, of 24 November 1993, Appl. No. 13972/88.

  44. 44.

    On transnational evidence and the rights to defence, see, for example, Gless (2013), pp. 94 ff.

  45. 45.

    For a critical view on this, see Bachmaier Winter (2014a), pp. 505–531.

  46. 46.

    The perspective of the DAL differs in this sense from the proposal of the EU Model Rules, developed within a research project of the University of Luxembourg, which do contain specific rules on the right of access to lawyer in the EPPO proceedings and pay particular attention in ensuring this right also during the pre-trial phase, in particular the rules 12, 14 and 61. See Ligeti (2012).

  47. 47.

    The principle of equality of arms, although not expressly mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights, is a long-standing principle recognised with the right to a fair trial of Article 6 ECHR. According to the interpretation of the ECtHR, the right to a fair trial implies that the defendant has reasonable opportunity to defend his case under conditions that do not entail a substantial disadvantage with respect to his opponent. See., e.g. judgment Dombo Beheer v. The Netherlands, of 27 October 1993, Appl. No. 14448/88.

References

  • Allegrezza S (2013) Verso una Procura Europea per tutelare gli interessi finanzari dell’Unione. Idee di ieri, chances di oggi, prospettive di domain. Diritto Penale Contemporaneo 31.10.2013, pp 1–10. https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/d/2610-verso-una-procura-europea-per-tutelare-gli-interessi-finanziari-dell-unione

  • Anagnostopoulos I (2014) The right to access to a lawyer in Europe: a long road ahead? Eur Crim Law Rev 4:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arangüena C (ed) (2007) Garantías procesales en los procesos penales en la Unión Europea/Procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union. Editorial Lex Nova, Valladolid

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2007) Proceso Penal y protección de los derechos fundamentales del imputado en Europa. La Propuesta de Decisión Marco sobre determinados derechos procesales en los procesos penales celebrados en la Unión Europea. In: de la Oliva A, Armenta Deu T, Calderón Cuadrado MP (eds) Garantías fundamentales del proceso penal en el espacio judicial europeo. Colex, Madrid, pp 41–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2012) La cooperación judicial en asuntos penales en Europa. Consideraciones prácticas, situación actual y propuestas de future. In: Gómez-Colomer JL, Barona S, Calderón P (eds) El derecho procesal español del s. XX a golpe de tango. Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 1203–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2014a) The establishment of a European Public Prosecution’s Office and the right to defence: critical approach to the EU proposal for a Directive of access to a lawyer. In: Grasso G, Illuminati G, Sicurella R, Allegrezza S (eds) Le sfide dell’attuazione di una procura europea: definizione di regole comuni e loro impatto sugli ordinamenti interni. Giuffrè Editore, Milano, pp 505–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2014b) The proposal for a Directive on the European Investigation Order and the grounds for refusal. A critical assessment. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 71–90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2015a) The potential contribution of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office at the light of the proposal for a regulation of 17 July 2013. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just 23:121–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2015b) Transnational evidence: towards the transposition of the Directive 2014/41 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. Eucrim 2015(2):47–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2015c) The EU directive on access to lawyer: a critical assessment. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the Lisbon Treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 111–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2017a) Remote search of computers under the new Spanish Law of 2015: proportionality principle and the protection of privacy. ZStW 129(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmaier Winter L (2017b) Mutual recognition and cross-border interception of communications: the way ahead for the European Investigation Order. In: Briére C, Weyembergh A (eds) The needed balances in EU criminal law. Hart publishing, Oxford, pp 313–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Buric Z (2016) Transnational criminal proceedings and the position of the defence. In: Durdevic Z, Ivicevic E (eds) European criminal procedure law in service of protection of European Union financial interests: state of play and challenges. Austrian Association of EU Criminal Law Verlag, Zagreb, pp 63–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Cape E, Hodgson J, Prakken T, Spronken T (2007) Procedural rights at the investigative stage: towards a real commitment to minimum standards. In: Cape E, Hodgson J, Prakken T, Spronken T (eds) Suspects in Europe. Procedural rights at the investigative stage of the criminal process in the European Union. Intesentia, Antwerp, pp 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa V (2016) The rights of the defence according to the ECtHR. An illustration in the light of A.T. v. Luxembourg and the right to legal assistance. New J Eur Crim Law 4:397–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Csonka P, Juszczak C, Sason E (2017) The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The road from vision to reality. Eucrim 2017(3):125–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Csuri A (2012) Naming and shaping. The changing structure of actors involved in the protection of EU finances. Eucrim 2012(2):79–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Francesco C (2017) Repercussions of the establishment of the EPPO via enhanced cooperation. EPPO’s added value and the possibility to extend its competence. Eucrim 2017(3):156–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Durdevic Z (2016) The directive on the right to access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings: filling a human rights gap in the European Union legal order. In: Durdevic Z, Ivicevic E (eds) European criminal procedure law in service of protection of European Union financial interests: state of play and challenges. Croatian Association of EU Criminal Law Verlag, Zagreb, pp 9–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Gless S (2007) Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gless S (2013) Transnational cooperation in criminal matters and the guarantee of a fair trial: approaches to a general principle. Utrecht Law Rev 4:90–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnfeld HH (2017) The draft regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – issues of balance between prosecution and defence. In: Briére C, Weyembergh A (eds) The needed balances in EU criminal law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 383–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyos Sancho M (2008) Armonización de los procesos penales, reconocimiento mutuo y garantías esenciales. In: Hoyos Sancho M (ed) El proceso penal en la Unión Europea: garantías esenciales. Editorial Lex Nova, Valladolid, pp 42–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiafa-Gbandi M (2013) Approximation of substantive criminal law provisions in the EU and fundamental principles of criminal law. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Approximation of substantive criminal law in the EU. The way forward. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp 85–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl L (2017) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office – more effective, equivalent and independent criminal prosecution against fraud? Eucrim 2017(3):135–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K (2012) Introduction to the model rules. http://eppo-project.eu/design/eppodesign/pdf/converted/index.html?url=c982b9eef093cee8cebfbfcb2b0556d1.pdf&search=

  • Ligeti K (2013) Approximation of substantive law and the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Approximation of substantive criminal law in the EU. The way forward. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp 73–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K, Simonato M (2013) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: towards a truly European Prosecution Service? New J Eur Crim Law 4:7–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K, Weyembergh A (2015) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: certain constitutional issues. In: Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. An extended arm or a two-headed dragon? Asser-Springer, The Hague, pp 53–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiaracina A (2014) A new and controversial scenario in the gathering of evidence at the European level: the proposal for a Directive on the European Investigation Order. Utrecht Law Rev 10:113–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morán Martínez R (2009) European public prosecutors’ working group conclusions. In: Fiscalía General del Estado, Madrid. https://www.fiscal.es/fiscal/publico/ciudadano/fiscal_especialista/cooperacion_internacional/documentos_normativa

  • Moreno Catena V (2014) Fiscalía Europea y Derechos fundamentales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Negri D (2017) Best practices and operational models in financial-economic investigations in Europe in view of the EPPO. In: Bernardi A, Negri D (eds) Investigating European fraud in the EU member states. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 149–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestler C (2006) European defence in trans-national criminal proceedings. In: Schünemann B (ed) Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege. A Programme for European Criminal Justice. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, pp 415–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieto A, Muñoz Morales M (2015) The Office of the European Public Prosecutor and related offences: deconstructing the problem. In: Asp P (ed) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Legal and criminal policy perspectives. Stiftelsen Skrifter utgivna av Jur. Fak. vid Stockholms Univ, Stockholm, pp 120–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieto A, Wade M, Muñoz Morales M (2013) Federal criminal law and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. In: Ligeti K (ed) Toward a prosecutor for the European Union. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 781–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafaraci T (2013) The right of defence in European judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 331–343

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinbay S (2014) Die Errichtung einer Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri S (2014) Transnational investigations and prosecution of cross-border cases in Europe: guidelines for a model of fair multicultural criminal justice. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 193–228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salazar L (2017) Definitivamente approvato il Regolamento istitutivo della Procura Europea (EPPO), Diritto Penale Contemporaneo (10/2017), pp 328–333, at https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/pdf-viewer/?file=%2Fpdf-fascicoli%2FDPC_10_2017.pdf#page=328

  • Satzger H (2015) The future European Public Prosecutor and the National Prosecution: potential conflicts and how to avoid them? In: Asp P (ed) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Legal and criminal policy perspectives. Stiftelsen Skrifter utgivna av Jur. Fak. vid Stockholms Univ, Stockholm, pp 69–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutte JJE (2015) Establishing enhanced cooperation under Article 86 TFEU. In: Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. An extended arm or a two-headed dragon? Asser-Springer, The Hague, pp 195-208

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervaele JAE (2010) Quel statut pour le ministère public? European enforcement agencies in the area of freedom, security and justice: the Eurojust-European public prosecutor binomial. In: Cour de Cassation (ed) Quelles perspectives pour un ministère public européen? Dalloz, Paris, pp 171–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervaele JAE (2013) Gathering and use of evidence in the area of freedom, security and jsutice, with special regard to EU fraud and OLAF investigations. In: Nowak C (ed) Evidence in EU fraud cases. Wolters Kluwer-CEDAM, Milano, pp 21–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade ML (2013) A European public prosecutor: potential and pitfalls. Crime Law Soc Chang 59:439–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahl T (2017) Die EU-Richtlinien zur Stärkung der Verfahrensrechte im Spiegel der EMRK. ERA-Forum 18:311–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White S (2013) Towards a decentralised European Public Prosecutor’s Office? New J Eur Crim Law 4:22–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerbes I (2015) Collecting and using evidence: a patchwork of legal orders. In: Asp P (ed) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Legal and criminal policy perspectives. Stiftelsen Skrifter utgivna av Jur. Fak. vid Stockholms Univ, Stockholm, pp 210–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwiers M (2011) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Analysis of a multilevel criminal justice system. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, Complutense University Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Lorena Bachmaier Winter

Authors
  1. Lorena Bachmaier Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorena Bachmaier Winter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Lorena Bachmaier Winter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bachmaier Winter, L. (2018). Cross-Border Investigations Under the EPPO Proceedings and the Quest for Balance. In: Bachmaier Winter, L. (eds) The European Public Prosecutor's Office. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93916-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93916-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93915-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93916-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation