Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Comparative Law. Models of Gathering Overseas Evidence in Criminal Matters

  • Stefano Ruggeri


The present contribution contains a comparative analysis of this research. The comparison has been carried out combining the experiences of ten legal orders both of European and non-European countries with three international levels relating respectively to the UN, Council of Europe and EU legislation. This study focuses of two main modes of collecting overseas evidence corresponding to a wide and a narrow notion of transnational inquiries, i.e., mutual assistance and extraterritorial investigations. Within these two areas various tools of cross-border cooperation have been analyzed. Moreover, these forms of cooperation have been developed in the frame of two models, the mutual assistance and the mutual recognition model.

The analysis follows the scheme of functional comparison and aims to ascertain whether and how the selected legal orders succeed in carrying out efficient forms of transnational criminal investigations by preventing both sovereignty and human rights violations. To answer properly this question, the present research has analysed the significant developments occurred, outside and inside Europe, in all the aforementioned forms of transnational inquiries both at international and domestic level.


Organize Crime Mutual Recognition Home State Legal Assistance Coercive Measure 
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.



Area of Freedom, Security and Justice


Code of Criminal Procedure


Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement


European Convention on Human Rights


European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters


European Court of Human Rights


European Union


Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union


Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union


Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant


Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant


Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant


Framework Decision on Joint Investigation Teams


Framework Decision on the Execution in the EU of Orders Freezing Property or Evidence


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act


Inter-American Convention of Human Rights


Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters


Inter-American Court of Human Rights


Proposal for a Directive on a European Investigation Order


Second Additional Protocol to European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters


Treaty on the European Union


Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union


United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime


United Nations Model Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters


United States Supreme Court


  1. Allegrezza S (2007) Cooperazione giudiziaria, mutuo riconoscimento e circolazione della prova penale nello spazio giudiziario 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, pp 691 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. 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: 580–589Google Scholar
  3. Belfiore R (2009) Movement of evidence in the EU: the present scenario and possible future developments. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 17:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daniele M (2008) Regole di esclusione della prova e giurisprudenza della Corte europea: profile di potenziale conflitto. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 483 ffGoogle Scholar
  5. Eser A (1998) Entwicklung, Aufgaben und Methoden der Strafrechtsvergleichung. In: Albrecht H-J (ed) Internationale Perspektiven in Kriminologie und Strafrecht, Festschrift für Günther Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, vol II. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 1499 ffGoogle Scholar
  6. García Ramirez S (2010) La reforma penal constitucional (2007–2008). Democracia o autoritarismo? 4th edn. Porrú a, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  7. Gleß S (2006) Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  8. Gleß S (2008) Beweisverbote in Fällen mit Auslandsbezug. Juristische Rundschau: 317–326Google Scholar
  9. Gleß S (2011) Europäische Beweisanordnung (EBA). In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, von Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 596–610Google Scholar
  10. Großfeld B (1984) Macht und Ohnmacht der Rechtsvergleichung. J.G.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), TübingenGoogle Scholar
  11. Hecker B (2010) Europäisches Strafrecht. 3rd edn. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jescheck H-H (1955) Entwicklung, Aufgaben und Methoden der Strafrechtsvergleichung. J.G.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), TübingenGoogle Scholar
  13. Klip A (2012) European criminal law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Anwerp-OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Kühne H-H (2010) Strafprozessrecht. Eine Systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Strafverfahrensrechts. C.F Müller, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  15. Melillo G (2009) Tecniche investigative speciali e squadre investigative comuni. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna, pp 93 ffGoogle Scholar
  16. Peers S (2011) EU justice and home affairs law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Reimann M (2002) The progress and failure of comparative law in the second half of the twentieth century. Am J Comp Law 50:671 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. Scella A (2012) Verso le squadre investigative comuni: lo scenario italiano. In: Rafaraci T (ed) La cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria in material penale nell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 315 ffGoogle Scholar
  19. Sieber U (2006) Strafrechtsvergleichung im Wandel – Aufgaben, Methoden und Theoriensätze der vergleichenden Strafrechtswissenschaft. In: Sieber U, Albrecht H-J (eds) Strafrecht und Kriminologie unter einem Dach. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 78 ffGoogle Scholar
  20. Spencer S (2010) The green paper on obtaining evidence from one member state to another and securing its admissibility: the reaction of one British lawyer. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik: 602–606Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Law “T. Martines”, Law SchoolUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations