Skip to main content

The European Investigation Order

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union

Abstract

Focusing on the criminal law cooperation ESTABLISHED in the European Union, the Member States have been progressively developing a common policy with the aim to create instruments to combat the international crime and to develop new forms of legal assistance. These instruments include not only the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the European Evidence Warrant (EEW), but also the initiative for a directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO). However, building an organic system in EU means overcoming the obstructive effects of multicultural and multilingual pluralism.

The initiative for an EIO presents not only procedural questions but also many problems of languages to be analysed. The specific problems of the translation of legal terminology are caused by the system's specificity of the legal language. This critical condition underlines the importance to create initiatives for judicial cooperation in criminal law, attending to judicial and linguistic significance of diverse terms in all the languages of the European Union.

Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    The beginning of the new Millennium was marked by terrible terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001, followed by the tragic bomb outrages in Madrid on 11 March 2004 and London on 7 July 2005.

  2. 2.

    The reference is to the lucid observations of Ruggieri (2010), p. 529 ff.

  3. 3.

    Pisani (2007), p. 388 ff.

  4. 4.

    Parisi (2010), p. 483.

  5. 5.

    Framework Decision (FWD) on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), OJEU 2002, L 190/1.

  6. 6.

    Framework Decision (FWD) on the European Evidence Warrant (EEW), OJEU 2008, L 350/72.

  7. 7.

    In this regard, see Campailla (2011), p. 90 ff.

  8. 8.

    Bauman memorably described Europe as the “motherland of permanent translation”: see Bauman (2006), p. 90.

  9. 9.

    Buzzelli (2005), p. 710.

  10. 10.

    On this theme, see Ruggieri (2006), p. 1234.

  11. 11.

    The principle of the mutual recognition of convictions and judicial decision was deemed “fundamental” for judicial cooperation for the first time by the European Council of Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999; see http://ec.europa.eu/archives/european-council/index_en.htm .

  12. 12.

    The Stockholm Programme, which replaces the Hague Programme, was adopted on 10 December 2009 and published in the OJEU on 4 May 2010, C/115/01, and is “a working agenda” for Member States for the period 2010–2014. It sets out measures to be taken to “ensure respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and integrity of the person while guaranteeing security in Europe” (Article 1.1). A meticulous examination of different means for sharing information, which is essential for the strengthening of judicial and police cooperation, is offered by Di Paolo (2010), p. 1969 ff.

  13. 13.

    Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (2010/C 165/02), OJEU 2010, C 165/22.

  14. 14.

    For an initial reaction upon the first reading of the proposed EIO by Italian jurists, see, inter alios, De Amicis (2010); Pulito (2010), c. 381 ff.; Pisani (2011), p. 1 ff.

  15. 15.

    OJEU 2002, L 190/1.

  16. 16.

    OJEU 2008, L 350/72.

  17. 17.

    OJEU 2000, C 197/1.

  18. 18.

    See Zimmermann et al. (2011), pp. 56–80.

  19. 19.

    The plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Program of 20 April 2010, COM (2010) 171 final, is available at http://www.europa.eu .

  20. 20.

    The Green Paper on Obtaining Evidence in Criminal Matters from One Member State to Another and Securing Its Admissibility, COM (2009) 624 final, is available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0004_en.htm .

  21. 21.

    The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights to information in criminal proceedings of 22 May 2012, OJEU 2012, L 142/1.

  22. 22.

    The expression and, more generally, the observation is contained in the Resolution of the Second Select Committee (Justice) of the Senate, approved in the first afternoon session of 2 March 2011, Rapporteur R. Centenaro, available at http://www.senato.it .

  23. 23.

    Selvaggi (2010), p. 543 ff.

  24. 24.

    Pommer (2008), p. 17; Ajani-Rossi (2006), p. 124, who report that the “difficulty of organising a uniform terminology in legal matters, which does not apply in Physics, Economics and other sciences, the lack of correspondence between terms that are used in different local cultures and the fact that the refer to ‘external’ objects: law shapes reality through instruments of cultural communication”.

  25. 25.

    Pommer (2005), p. 376 ff.

  26. 26.

    To explore the idea in greater detail, see Cavini (1999), p. 302, and Perrodet (2001), pp. 393–406.

  27. 27.

    In this regard, see Ruggieri (2012).

  28. 28.

    On this topic, see Chiavario (2001) passim.

  29. 29.

    As described by Ruggieri (2012).

  30. 30.

    Ibidem.

  31. 31.

    Pisani (2011), p. 6.

  32. 32.

    The phrase comes from the linguist Zanzotto (1995); see also Beccaria (2008).

Abbreviations

EAW:

European Arrest Warrant

EEW:

European Evidence Warrant

EIO:

European Investigation Order

EU:

European Union

FWD:

Framework Decision

OJ:

Official Journal of the European Union

TFEU:

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

References

  • Ajani G, Rossi P (2006) Coerenza del diritto privato europeo e multilinguismo. In: Pozzo B and Jacometti V (ed) Le politiche linguistiche delle istituzioni comunitarie dopo l’allargamento. Redazione, traduzione e interpretazione degli atti giuridici comunitari e il loro impatto sull’armonizzazione del diritto europeo. Giuffrè, Milan, p 119 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman Z (2006) L’Europa è un’avventura. Laterza, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria GL (2008) Tra le pieghe delle parole. Einaudi, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzelli S (2005) Processo penale europeo. In: Enciclopedia del Diritto - Aggiornamento I. Giuffrè, Milan, p 710 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Campailla S (2011) La “circolazione” giudiziaria europea dopo Lisbona. In: Processo penale e Giustizia, No. 2, p 90 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavini S (1999) La pubblica accusa nei diversi Stati dell’Unione europea: breve rapporto sui principi vigenti in Italia, Francia, Germania, Gran Bretagna e Spagna. In: Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, p 302 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiavario M (ed) (2001) Procedure penali d’Europa. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • De Amicis G (2010) L’ordine europeo di indagine penale. www.europea-rights.eu. Accessed 15 June 2010

  • Di Paolo G (2010) La circolazione dei dati personali nello spazio giudiziario europeo dopo Prüm. In: Cassazione penale, p 1969 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisi N (2010) Su taluni limiti dell’attività di ricerca e acquisizione della prova penale di reati informatici (ancora a proposito del preteso conflitto tra esigenze della sovranità e rigetto dei diritti della persona). In: Corso P, Zanetti E (eds) Studi in onore di Mario Pisani, vol II. La Tribuna, Piacenza, p 443 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrodet V (2001) Quante figure di pubblico ministero. In: Chiavario M (ed) Procedure penali d’Europa. Cedam, Padova, pp 393–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisani M (2007) Il “processo penale europeo”: problemi e prospettive. In: Pisani M (ed) Nuovi temi e casi di procedura penale internazionale. Giuffrè, Milan, p 388 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisani MM (2011) Problemi di prova in materia penale. La proposta di direttiva sull’Ordine Europeo di Indagine. In: Archivio penale, No. 3, p 1 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pommer SE (2005) Cultural Competency in Legal Translation: How Comparative Law Knowledge Influences Legal Translation Strategies. In: Congress Proceedings, Fedorov Readings-VII, St. Petersburg, p 376 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pommer SE (2008) Translation as Intercultural Transfer: The Case of Law. Skase J Transl Interpretation 3(1):17

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulito L (2010) La circolazione della prova penale in Europa dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. In: Giustizia penale, Part I, column 381 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggieri F (2006) Processo penale e multilinguismo nell’Unione europea. Spunti per alcune riflessioni introduttive. In: Cassazione penale, No. 12, p 1234

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggieri F (2010) Di un “Processo penale europeo” ovvero di una “civitas magna” in costruzione, In: Corso P, Zanetti E (eds) Studi in onore di Mario Pisani, vol II. La Tribuna, Piacenza, p 529 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggieri F (2012) L’italiano giuridico che cambia: il caso della procedura penale. In: Cass pen 3, p 1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvaggi E (2010) “L’arabo, il parto, il siro in suo sermon l’udì”: riflessioni sulla babele delle lingue nei rapporti giurisdizionali con autorità straniere. In: Corso P, Zanetti E (eds) Studi in onore di Mario Pisani, vol II. La Tribuna, Piacenza, pp 543–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanzotto A (1995) Europa, melograno di lingue. Einaudi, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann F, Glaser S, Motz A (2011) Mutual Recognition and Its Implications for the Gathering of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: A Critical Analysis of the Initiative for a European Investigation Order. Eur Crim Law Rev (1):56–80

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucio Camaldo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Camaldo, L. (2014). The European Investigation Order. In: Ruggieri, F. (eds) Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37152-3_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics