Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe pp 71–90Cite as

The Proposal for a Directive on the European Investigation Order and the Grounds for Refusal: A Critical Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Since the first draft of a Proposal of a Directive for a European Investigation Order was presented in 2010, there have been numerous meetings, reports, consultations and opinions, with the aim of reaching an agreement on a single instrument for the gathering of evidence in European cross-border criminal investigations. The purpose of this study is to point out those issues that should be recast in order to improve the regulation of the grounds of refusal of recognition and execution of a European Investigation Order: for example, the possible refusal to cooperate in carrying out investigative measures based on the lack of double incrimination, the principle of proportionality, the existence of an immunity or the principle of ne bis in idem. The need to clarify the regulation and avoid unnecessary complexity is essential for a swift and efficient judicial cooperation as well as for fostering the principle of mutual trust.

This paper has been written within the context of the research project “Lucha contra el terrorismo en Europa y restricción de derechos fundamentales en el proceso penal” (DER 2009-11243), financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and sent for publication in December 2012. A previous version of this article was published in Spanish under the title “La propuesta de directiva europea sobre la orden de investigación penal: valoración crítica de los motivos de denegación,” Rev. La Ley 28 diciembre 2012.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The initiative for a PD EIO was first published on the 29 April 2010 (COPEN 15, CODEC 363, EUROJUST 47, EJN 12).

  2. 2.

    Among others see the reports of CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies of June 2011 written by D. Sayers (http://www.ceps.eu/book/european-investigation-order-travelling-without-‘roadmap’); the JUSTICE Briefing on the European Investigation Order of July 2011 (http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/aug/eu-justice-briefing-eio.pdf); STATEWATCH, whose reports of May and November 2010 are signed by S. Peers (http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-96-european-investigation-order.pdf and http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-112-eu-eio-update.pdf) the report of the German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltsverein) of May 2011 (http://anwaltverein.de/downloads/Stellungnahmen-11/SN-29.pdf); of the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer of January 2011 (http://www.brak.de/zur-rechtspolitik/stellungnahmen-pdf/stellungnahmen-europa/2011/januar/stellungnahme-der-brak-2011-10.pdf).

  3. 3.

    See, for example Bachmaier Winter (2013), pp. 85–110 and the literature cited there. See also, Ruggeri (2013), pp. 283ff.; Vermeulen et al. (2010), pp. 7ff.; Jiménez-Villarejo Fernández (2011), pp. 175–203; Zimmermann et al. (2011), pp. 56–80; and Aguilera Morales (2012), pp. 1–25.

  4. 4.

    Made in Brussels 17 June 2011, COPEN 158, EUROJUST 99, EJN 80.

  5. 5.

    Text agreed as general approach, made in Brussels the 21.12.2011, 18918/11, COPEN 369, EUROJUST 217, EJN 185.

  6. 6.

    The document made in Brussels in 29 February 2012, COPEN 44, EUROJUST 16, EJN 16, includes amendments of the Preamble and in the Annex, according to the observations made by the delegations after the meeting of the Council the 13 and 14 December 2011, where the new text of the EIO published the 21 December 2011 was approved. Those amendments appear also in the subsequent text of the working group made on 29 May 2012, COPEN 104, EUROJUST 42, EJN 34. The changes affect the recitals 10d, 11, 12, 14, 14b, 14d, 14j, 15, and 15a of the Preamble as well as the Annex related to Article 29 PD EIO. These amendments in the wording and systematic of the Preamble do not represent significant changes.

  7. 7.

    It would be impossible to cite here the huge number of publications and scientific literature regarding the mutual recognition principle in the judicial cooperation in Europe.

  8. 8.

    Since the text of this article was written, the Commission has published a Proposal for a Regulation, Brussels, 17.7.2013, COM(2013) 534 final.

  9. 9.

    I already questioned the justification of the need for a PD EIO, as it is explained in the Preamble in our previous study, in Bachmaier Winter (2013), pp. 96ff. In the same sense, see also Ferries (2010), p. 432; the report of the Deutsches Anwaltsverein of May 2011 or point 4 of the Report of the Bundestag of 6 October 2010, mentioned above, under footnote 2.

  10. 10.

    The FRA, in the conclusions of its Opinion on the draft Directive regarding the European Investigation Order of 14 February 2013 states: “Thus, the draft legislation might not sufficiently draw on factual, comparative analysis of the shortcomings in the daily functioning of the existing systems across the European Union. Against this background, it seems even more important to build in evidence-based mechanisms both in the observation of how this new instrument is operating in practice as well as in future revisions.” See http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2011/fra-opinion-draft-directive-regarding-european-investigation-order-eio.

  11. 11.

    A good example of a research Project focused on collecting empirical data on the judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is the “Euroneeds Project”, directed by the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, and coordinated by Prof. M. Wade. The main conclusions of this research Project can be read in Wade (2011), accessible under http://www.mpicc.de/shared/data/pdf/euroneeds_report_jan_2011.pdf.

  12. 12.

    Generally on the grounds of refusal see Bachmaier Winter (2013), pp. 100ff.; Jiménez-Villarejo Fernández (2011), pp. 194ff.; Aguilera Morales (2012), pp. 11ff.

  13. 13.

    In case there should be a less intrusive measure for achieving the same results, the substitution should be mandatory, as it is pointed out in the report of JUSTICE under point 9. The same critical remark is expressed more recently also by Aguilera Morales (2012), p. 17.

  14. 14.

    See Bachmaier Winter (2013), pp. 100–101.

  15. 15.

    Most of these grounds for refusal are found already in Article 13 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/979/JHA on the EEW for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in criminal proceedings, of 18 December 2008.

  16. 16.

    On immunity of jurisdiction and execution of states, its scope, content and alternatives in Spain see the comprehensive analysis made by Gascón Inchausti (2008), pp. 97–106 and pp. 415ff.; Kloth (2010), pp. 88ff.

  17. 17.

    For example, Gless (2011), p. 605; Mavany (2012), pp. 130–131, although with regard to the European evidence warrant regulated in the Council Framework Decision 2008/979/JHA; Gstöhl (2008), pp. 188ff.

  18. 18.

    On the problems related to the use of state secrets and the access to classified information in judicial proceedings, albeit with regard to the US criminal justice system, see the interesting study of Vervaele (2012), pp. 229–261.

  19. 19.

    At present a proposal for decriminalizing petty offences now regulated in the Criminal Code is discussed in Spain. It is early to make any assessment of this intended future reform, but for those future administrative offences Article 4(b) and (c) PD EIO could be applicable, obviously only if the proportionality test is met.

  20. 20.

    See generally Bachmaier Winter (2010), pp. 584–585. Later, in the same sense the report of the Bundestag of 6 October 2010, cit., point 12; and the report of STATEWATCH, cit., p. 6.

  21. 21.

    Among others, see following monographic studies: Mansdörfer (2004), pp. 135ff.; Kniebühler (2005), in particular on the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, see pp. 169ff.; Jagla (2007), pp. 45ff.; Costa Ramos (2009), pp. 115ff. See also, Vervaele (2005), pp. 100–118. In Spain see, for example, De la Oliva (2008), pp. 167–185. In the same volume see Cedeño Hernán and Aguilera Morales (2008), pp. 187–241.

  22. 22.

    Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR: Right not to be tried or punished twice: “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.” For the case law of the ECtHR on Article 4 of Protocol VII, see Van Boeckel (2010), pp. 173–203.

  23. 23.

    See Mansdörfer (2004), pp. 238ff.

  24. 24.

    For an interesting comparative law study of the principle of ne bis in idem in Europe and beyond, see Mansdörfer (2004), pp. 57ff. (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Benelux, common law legal systems, Scandinavian legal systems, and Spain and Italy); Kniebühler (2005), pp. 17ff. (Germany and Belgium); Jagla (2007), pp. 156ff. (Germany, United Kingdom and France).

  25. 25.

    Eser (2011), pp. 571–576.

  26. 26.

    Article 54 CISA has not been superseded by Article 50 EU FRCh and, as both provisions tend to overlap, it can be concluded that Article 54 CISA has to be interpreted according to Article 50 of the European Charter. On the other hand, Article 54 CISA could be considered as a concretion of the broader constitutional provision. On this issue see Buchard and Brodowski (2010), pp. 310ff.

  27. 27.

    See Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States.

  28. 28.

    Jiménez-Villarejo Fernández (2011), p. 189.

  29. 29.

    Article 10(1a) PD EIO lists: (a) the hearing of a witness, victim, suspect or third party; (b) any non-coercive investigative measure; (c) the obtaining of information or evidence which is already in the possession of the executing authority and this information or evidence could have been obtained through the execution of an EIO; (d) the obtaining of information contained in databases held by police or judicial authorities and directly accessible by the executing authority in the framework of criminal proceedings; (e) the identification of persons holding a subscription of a specified phone number or IP address; (f) search and seizure in relation to one of the 32 offences listed in the annex if they are punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or detention order for a maximum period of at least 3 years.

  30. 30.

    Art. 10.1b PD EIO reads: “Without prejudice to paragraph (1), where the investigative measure indicated by the issuing authority in the EIO concerns a measure other than those referred to in paragraph (1a), the recognition or execution of the measure may also be refused:

    1. (a)

      if the conduct for which the EIO has been issued does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State, unless it concerns an offence listed within the categories of offences set out in the Annex X, as indicated by the issuing authority in the EIO, if it is punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or detention order for a maximum period of at least three years; or

    2. (b)

      if the use of the measure is restricted under the law of the executing State to a list or category of offences or to offences punishable by a certain threshold, which does not include the offence covered by the EIO.”

  31. 31.

    This may explain the publication of the document “Frequently asked questions” with regard to the PD EIO, with the aim of making the citizens and other stakeholders aware of the content, and scope of the future European Investigation Order The document “Frequently asked questions” was made in Brussels on 4 April 2012, COPEN 71, EUROJUST 25, EJN 20.

  32. 32.

    Bachmaier Winter (2010), p. 584 and Bachmaier Winter (2013), pp. 98ff.

References

  • Aguilera Morales M (2012) El exhorto europeo de investigación: a la búsqueda de la eficacia y la protección de los derechos fundamentales en las investigaciones penales transfronterizas. BIMJ 2145:1–25

    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, A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 85–110

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buchard B, Brodowski D (2010) The post-Lisbon principle on transnational ne bis in idem: On the relationship between article 50 charter of fundamental rights and article 54 convention implementing the Schengen agreement. Case note on District Court Aachen, Germany, Decision of 8 December 2010. New J Eur Crim Law 1(3):310ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cedeño Hernán M, Aguilera Morales M (2008) El principio non bis in idem a la luz de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia. In: De la Oliva A (ed) La Justicia y la Carta de derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Colex, Madrid, pp 187–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa Ramos V (2009) Ne bis in idem e Uniao Europeia. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Oliva A (2008) La regla non bis in idem en el derecho procesal penal de la Unión Europea; algunas cuestiones y respuestas. In: De la Oliva A (ed) La Justicia y la Carta de derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Colex, Madrid, pp 167–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser A (2011) Justizielle Zusammenarbeit auf der Grundlage der gegenseitigen Anerkennung. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, von Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 557–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferries A (2010) The European Investigation Order: stepping forward with care. New J Eur Crim Law 1(04):425–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Gascón Inchausti F (2008) Inmunidades procesales y tutela judicial frente a Estados extranjeros. Thomson-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gstöhl C (2008) Geheimnisschutz im Verfahren der internationalen Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen. Stämpfli, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagla SF (2007) Auf dem Weg zu einem zwischenstaatlichen ne bis in idem im Rahmen der Europäischen Union. Lang, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Villarejo Fernández F (2011) Orden europea de investigación: ¿Adiós a las comisiones rogatorias? In: Arangüena C (ed) Cooperación judicial civil y penal en el nuevo escenario de Lisboa. Comares, Granada, pp 175–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloth M (2010) Immunities and the right of access to court under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kniebühler R (2005) Transnationales ‘ne bis in idem’. Zum Verbot der Mehrfachverfolgung in horizontaler und vertikaler Dimension. Duncker & Humblot, Freiburg i. Br

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansdörfer M (2004) Das Prinzip des ne bis in idem im europäischen Strafrecht. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mavany M (2012) Die Europäische Beweisanordnung und das Prinzip der gegenseitigen Anerkennung. Verlag F.C. Müller, Heidelberg

    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, pp 279–310

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boeckel B (2010) The ne bis in idem principle in EU Law. Kluwer Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, De Bondt W, Van Damme Y (2010) EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters. Towards mutual recognition of investigative measures and free movement of evidence? Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervaele JAE (2005) The transnational ne bis in idem principle in the EU. Mutual recognition and equivalent protection of human rights. Utrecht Law Rev 1(2):100–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervaele JAE (2012) Secreto de estado y “privilegios probatorios” en los procesos de terrorismo en los estados Unidos. ¿Control judicial de los arcana imperii? In: Bachmaier Winter L (ed) Terrorismo, proceso penal y derechos fundamentales. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 229–261

    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

  • 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

  1. Facultad de Derecho, Departamento de Derecho Procesal, University Complutense of Madrid, Avda. Complutense s/n, 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. 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

Winter, L.B. (2014). The Proposal for a Directive on the European Investigation Order and the Grounds for Refusal: A Critical Assessment. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation