Evidence Gathering

Chapter

Abstract

Evidence gathering in the European context is regulated on the basis of the transnational cooperation model. Its fundamental instruments are the newborn European Investigation Order (EIO), which includes some elements of the mutual recognition logic. and the traditional letter rogatory inspired by the mutual assistance principle, that now has a much more reduced operational scope. Both are subject to refusal grounds, which aim to protect the fundamental principles of the execution States’ domestic law. The admissibility of the evidence collected is regulated by each national system. The danger of the use of such instruments is that, in order to achieve the maximum of efficiency, they compromise procedural guarantees provided by national law. A desirable remedy is the use of the proportionality test provided by Art. 52.1 of the Nice Charter: in each concrete situation, the investigation acts may interfere with a fundamental right only in the measure that is strictly necessary to carry them out and they do not impair the essential core of such right.

Further Reading

  1. Allegrezza S (2011) Critical remarks on the green paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one member state to another and securing its admissibility. (9) www.zis-online.com
  2. Allegrezza S (2014) Collecting criminal evidence across the European Union: the European Investigation Order between flexibility and proportionality. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 51 ffGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambos K (2010) Transnationale Beweiserlangung: 10 Thesen zum Grünbuch der EU-Kommission “Erlangung verwertbarer Beweise in Strafsachen aus einem anderen Mitgliedstaat”. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 557 ffGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambos K (ed) (2011) Europäisches Strafrecht post-Lissabon. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  5. Arasi S (2014) The EIO proposal and the rules on interception of telecommunications. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Armada I (2015) The European Investigation Order and the lack of European standards for gathering evidence: is a fundamental rights-based refusal the solution? New J Eur Crim Law 6(1):8 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bachmaier L (2010) European Investigation Order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings: study of the proposal for a European Directive. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 581 ffGoogle Scholar
  8. Bachmaier Winter L (2013) Transnational criminal proceedings, witness evidence and confrontation: lessons from the ECtHR’s case law. Utrecht Law Rev 9(4):127 ffGoogle Scholar
  9. Bachmaier Winter L (2014) 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 ffGoogle Scholar
  10. Bachmaier Winter L (2015) Towards the transposition of Directive 2014/41 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. Eucrim (2), pp 47 ffGoogle Scholar
  11. Bachmaier Winter L (2017) Cross-border investigation of tax offences in the EU: scope of application and grounds for refusal of the European Investigation Order. Eur Crim Law Rev (1), pp 46 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Belfiore R (2014) Critical remarks on the proposal for a European Investigation Order and some considerations on the issue of mutual admissibility of evidence. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 91 ffGoogle Scholar
  13. Belfiore R (2014) Exchange of DNA data across the EU: issues and perspectives in light of the principle of proportionality. In: Ruggeri F (ed) Criminal proceedings, languages and the European Union. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 181 ffGoogle Scholar
  14. Belfiore R (2015) The European Investigation Order in criminal matters: developments in evidence-gathering across the EU. Eur Crim Law Rev (3), pp 312 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Belluta H (2015) Protection of particularly vulnerable victims in the Italian criminal process. In: Lupària L (ed) Victims and criminal justice. Wolters Kluwer, Assago, pp 251 ffGoogle Scholar
  16. Biral M (2014) The right to examine or have examined witnesses as a minimum right for a fair trial. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just 5(4):331 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blackstock J (2010) The European Investigation Order. New J Eur Crim Law 1(4):481 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. Buono L (2010) The global challenge of cloud computing and EU law. Eucrim (3), pp 117 ffGoogle Scholar
  19. Burgos J (2015) Ladrón de Guevara, La Orden Europea de Investigación Penal en España, aplicación y contenido posible: relación con la Orden Europea de Protección. Diario La Ley, no. 8661Google Scholar
  20. Caianiello M (2014) To sanction (or not to sanction) procedural flaws at EU level? Eur J Crime Crim L Crim Just 22(4):317 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. Calderoni F (2010) The European legal framework on cybercrime: striving for an effective implementation. Crime Law Soc Change, pp 339 ffGoogle Scholar
  22. Camaldo L (2014) The European Investigation Order. In: Ruggeri F (ed) Criminal proceedings, languages and the European Union. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 203 ffGoogle Scholar
  23. Caprioli F (2013) Report on Italy. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 439 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Crupi F (2015) New perspectives for the protection of personal data in criminal proceedings in the European Union and repercussions on the Italian legal system. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 261 ffGoogle Scholar
  25. Daniele M (2014) Testimony through a live link in the perspective of the right to confront witnesses. Crim Law Rev (3), pp 189 ffGoogle Scholar
  26. Daniele M (2015) Evidence gathering in the realm of the European Investigation Order: from national rules to global principles. New J Eur Crim Law 6(2):179 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Hert P, Papakonstantinou V (2016) The new police and criminal justice data protection directive: a first analysis. New J Eur Crim Law 7(1):7 ffGoogle Scholar
  28. De Hert P, Weiss K, Cloosen X (2009) The framework decision of 18 December 2008 on the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters - a critical assessment update. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 55 ffGoogle Scholar
  29. Depauw S (2017) A European evidence (air)space? Taking cross-border legal admissibility of forensic evidence to a higher level. Eur Crim Law Rev (1), pp 82 ffGoogle Scholar
  30. Farries A (2010) The European Investigation Order: stepping forward with care. New J Eur Crim Law 1(4):425 ffGoogle Scholar
  31. Fartunova M (2013) La preuve dans le droit de l'Union européenne. Primento, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  32. Fletcher M, Lööf R, Gilmore B (2013) EU criminal law and justice, II edn. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  33. Flore D (2014) Droit penal européen. Les enjeux d’une justice pénale européenne, II edn. Larcier, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  34. Garcimartín Montero R (2017) The European investigation order and the respect for fundamental rights in criminal investigations. Eucrim, pp 45 ffGoogle Scholar
  35. Gialuz M (2015) Victim’s protection in the case law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. In: Lupària L (ed) Victims and criminal justice. Wolters Kluwer, Assago, pp 21 ffGoogle Scholar
  36. Gless S (2005) Mutual recognition, judicial inquiries, due process and fundamental rights. In: Vervaele JAE (ed) European Evidence Warrant. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 121 ffGoogle Scholar
  37. Gless S (2007) Beweisgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-BadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gless S (2013) Transnational cooperation in criminal matters and the guarantee of a fair trial: approaches to a general principle. Utrecht Law Rev 9(4):90 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gómez-Jara Diez C (2010) Models for a system of European criminal law: unification vs. harmonization. New J Eur Crim Law 1(3):385 ffGoogle Scholar
  40. Goss R (2014) Criminal fair trial rights. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Grio A (2014) The defendant’s rights in the hearing by videoconference. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 119 ffGoogle Scholar
  42. Heard C, Mansell D (2011) The European Investigation Order: changing the face of evidence-gathering in EU cross-border cases. New J Eur Crim Law 2(4):353 ffGoogle Scholar
  43. Hecker B (2013) Mutual recognition and transfer of evidence. The European Evidence Warrant. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 269 ffGoogle Scholar
  44. Hecker B (2015) Europäisches Strafrecht. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Illuminati G (2015) The victim as a witness. In: Lupària L (ed) Victims and criminal justice. Wolters Kluwer, Assago, pp 65 ffGoogle Scholar
  46. Janssens C (2013) The principle of mutual recognition in EU law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jiménez-Villarejo Fernández F (2011) Orden europea de investigación: adiós a las comisiones rogatorias? In: Arangüena Fanego C (ed) Cooperación judicial civil y penal en el nuevo escenario de Lisboa. Editorial Comares, Granada, pp 201 ffGoogle Scholar
  48. Klimek L (2012) Free movement of evidence in criminal matters. (4). http://www.ilaw.cas.cz/tlq/index.php/tlq
  49. Klimek L (2016) Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in European criminal law. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  50. Klip A (2016) European criminal law. An integrative approach, 3rd edn. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Kusak M (2017) Common EU minimum standards for enhancing mutual admissibility of evidence gathered in criminal matters. Eur J Crim Pol Res. 14 Mar 2017Google Scholar
  52. Kusak M (2017) Mutual admissibility of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. A study of telephone tapping and house search. Maklu Publishers, Antwerpen-ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  53. Lach A (2009) Transnational gathering of evidence in criminal cases in the EU de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Eucrim (3), pp 107 ffGoogle Scholar
  54. Luif P, Trauner F (2014) The Prüm process: the effects of enhanced cooperation within Europe and with the United States in combating serious crime. In: Holzhacker RL, Luif P (eds) Freedom, security and justice in the European Union. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 101 ffGoogle Scholar
  55. Lupària L (2014) Los veinticinco años del proceso penal italiano y las tendencias de reforma en Europa. www.penalecontemporaneo.it, 17 Nov 2014
  56. 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(1):113 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martín García AL, Bujosa Vadell LM (2016) La obtención de prueba en materia penal en la Unión Europea. Editorial Atelier, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  58. Martínez García E (2016) La orden europea de investigación. Tirant lo Blanch, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  59. McClean D (2012) International co-operation in civil and criminal matters. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  60. Miettinen S (2013) Criminal law and policy in the European Union. Routledge, London-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Mitsilegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Mitsilegas V (2016) EU criminal law after Lisbon. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Murphy CC (2011) The European Evidence Warrant: mutual recognition and mutual (dis)trust? In: Eckes C, Konstadinides T (ed) Crime within the area of freedom, security and justice. A European public order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 224 ffGoogle Scholar
  64. Nowak C (ed) Evidence in EU fraud cases. Wolters Kluwer, AssagoGoogle Scholar
  65. Ormazábal Sánchez G (2006) La formación del espacio judicial europeo en materia penal y el principio de reconocimiento mutuo. Especial referencia a la extradición y al mutuo reconocimiento de pruebas. In: Armenta Deu T, Gascón Inchausti F, Cedeño Hernán M (eds) El derecho procesal penal en la Unión Europea. Colex, Madrid, pp 37 ffGoogle Scholar
  66. Rafaraci T (2014) General considerations on the European Investigation Order. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 37 ffGoogle Scholar
  67. Ryan A (2014) Towards a system of European criminal justice: the problem of admissibility of evidence. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Ruggeri S (2013) Horizontal cooperation, obtaining evidence overseas and the respect for fundamental rights in the EU. From the European Commission’s proposals 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. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 279 ffGoogle Scholar
  69. Ruggeri S (2014) Introduction to the proposal of a European Investigation Order: due process concerns and open issues. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3 ffGoogle Scholar
  70. Ruggeri S (2015) Die Verwertung im Ausland erhobener Beweise im europäischen Rechtsraum. Grundrechtliche Probleme und neue Herausforderungen am Beispiel des italienischen Strafprozessrechts. (9). www.zis-online.com
  71. Ruggeri S (2015) Transnational prosecutions, methods of obtaining overseas evidence, human rights protection in Europe. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 147 ffGoogle Scholar
  72. Sayers D (2011) The European Investigation Order. Travelling without a ‘roadmap’. http://www.ceps.eu
  73. Sicurella R, Scalia V (2013) Data mining and profiling in the area of freedom, security and justice. New J Eur Crim Law 4(4):409 ffGoogle Scholar
  74. Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, Von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) (2011) Europaieshes Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  75. Simonato M (2014) Defence rights and the use of information technology in criminal procedure. Rev Int Droit Pen Law, pp 301 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Soleto Muñoz H, Fiodorova A (2014) DNA and law enforcement in the European Union: tools and human rights protection. Utrecht Law Rev 10(1):149 ffGoogle Scholar
  77. Spencer JR (2008) The problems of trans-border evidence and European initiative to resolve them. In: Grasso G, Sicurella R (eds) Per un rilancio del progetto europeo. Esigenze di tutela degli interessi comunitari e nuove strategie di integrazione penale. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 471 ffGoogle Scholar
  78. Tinière R, Vial C (2015) Protection des droits fondamentaux dans l’Union Européenne: entre évolution et permanence. Primento, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  79. Todaro G (2015) The Italian system for the protection of victims of crime: analysis and prospects. In: Lupària L (ed) Victims and criminal justice. Wolters Kluwer, Assago, pp 101 ffGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Der Vlis EJ (2012) Videoconferencing in criminal proceedings. In: Braun S, Taylor JL (eds) Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 13 ffGoogle Scholar
  81. Vermeulen G (2011) Free gathering and movement of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. Thinking beyond borders, striving for balance, in search of coherence. Maklu Publishers, Antwerpen-ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  82. Vermeulen G, De Bondt W, Van Damme Y (2010) EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters. Maklu Publishers, Antwerpen-ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  83. Vervaele JAE (ed) (2005) European Evidence Warrant: transnational judicial inquiries in the EU. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  84. Vuille J, Lupària L, Taroni F (2017) Scientific evidence and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. Law Probab Risk (1)Google Scholar
  85. Weyembergh A, De Biolley S (2006) The EU mutual legal assistance convention of 2000 and the interceptions of telecommunications. Eur J Law Reform (2–3)Google Scholar
  86. Williams C (2005) Overview of the commission’s proposal for a framework decision on the European Evidence Warrant. In: Vervaele JAE (ed) European Evidence Warrant. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 69 ffGoogle Scholar
  87. Zarza AG (2015) Exchange of information and data protection in cross-border criminal proceedings in Europe. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  88. Zerbes I (2015) Legal issues of transnational exchange of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. Eur Crim Law Rev (3), pp 304 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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), pp 56 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Italian Court of CassationRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations