Advertisement

Towards an Inconsistent European Regime of Cross-Border Evidence: The EPPO and the European Investigation Order

  • András Csúri
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the different approaches to cross-border evidence in two future manifestations of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU: the European Investigation Order (EIO) and the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). In the horizontal context of the EIO, the collection and transfer of evidence is based on a redesigned mutual recognition scheme, while the proposed EPPO model selectively combines elements of horizontal and vertical cooperation for the gathering and the Union wide recognition of evidence. The study sets the emphasis on the potential problems of the mixed EPPO regime and its future co-existence with the EIO. With currently no minimum European rules on the mutual admissibility of evidence, no uniform EPPO powers and the reality of the EPPO being established by enhanced cooperation, the author concludes that initial recourse to the EIO in EPPO investigations might be beneficial for various reasons. It might increase the acceptance of the EIO in practice, the trust in future EPPO investigations, the recognition of EPPO-evidence and the coherence of cross-border investigations in the EU in general.

Keywords

European Union Judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU The Corpus Juris study European Public Prosecutor’s Office European Investigation Order (EIO) Evidence Cross-border investigations 

References

  1. 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 Journal of European Criminal Law, 6: 8–31Google Scholar
  2. Böse M (2014) Die Europäische Ermittlungsanordnung – Beweistransfer nach neuen Regeln? Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 4:152–164Google Scholar
  3. Csúri A (2012) Naming and Shaping. The Changing Structure of Actors Involved in the Protection of EU Finances. eucrim 2:79–83Google Scholar
  4. Csúri A (2016) The Proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office - From a Trojan Horse to a White Elephant? In: Armstrong K et al. (eds) Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. Cambridge University Press, Vol. 18, pp 122–151Google Scholar
  5. Damaskou A (2015) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. A Ground-Breaking New Institution of the EU Legal Order. New Journal of European Criminal Law 6: 143–149Google Scholar
  6. De Capitani E, Peers S (2014) The European Investigation Order: A new approach to mutual recognition in criminal matters. EU Law Analysis. http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.at/2014/05/the-european-investigation-order-new.html Last accessed 22 March 2017
  7. Delmas-Marty M (ed) (1997) Corpus Juris Introducing Penal Provisions for the Purpose of the Financial Interests of the European Union. Editions Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Delmas-Marty M, Vervaele JAE (eds) (2000) The Implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States: Penal Provisions for the Protection of European Finances, 4 Volumes. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  9. Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) (2014) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? TMC Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  10. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2011) Opinion on the draft directive regarding the European Investigation Order. http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2011/fra-opinion-draft-directive-regarding-european-investigation-order-eio. Last accessed 22 March 2017
  11. House of Lords, European Union Committee (2013) Third Report: Subsidiarity Assessment: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeucom/65/6503.htm. Last accessed 22 March 2017
  12. Klimek L (2015) European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  13. Ligeti K (2011) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: Which Model? In: Klip A (ed) Substantive Criminal Law of the European Union. Maklu Publishing, pp 51–65Google Scholar
  14. Ligeti K, Simonato M (2013) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: Towards a Truly European Prosecution Service? New Journal of European Criminal Law, 4:7–21Google Scholar
  15. Lohse KM (2014) The European Public Prosecutor: Issues of Conferral, Subsidiarity and Proportionality. In: Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 165–183Google Scholar
  16. Luchtman M, Vervaele JAE (2014) European Agencies for Criminal Justice and Shared Enforcement (Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office). Utrecht Law Review 10: 132–150Google Scholar
  17. Mitsilegas V (2006) The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Market Law Review 43: 1277–1311Google Scholar
  18. Mitsilegas V (2012) The Limits of Mutual Trust in Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: From Automatic Inter-State Cooperation to the Slow Emergence of the Individual. Yearbook of European Law, 31:319–372Google Scholar
  19. Nilsson HG (2011) Judicial Cooperation in the EU. Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor. In: Guild E et al (eds) The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years on: Successes and Future Challenges Under the Stockholm Programme. Centre for European Policy Studies, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  20. Peers S (2004) Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: Has the Council got it Wrong? Common Market Law Review 41: 5–36Google Scholar
  21. Peers S (2008) EU criminal law and the Treaty of Lisbon. European Law Review, 33: 507–529Google Scholar
  22. Peers S (2014) EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (Non-Civil). In: Craig P, de Búrca G (eds) The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 269–297Google Scholar
  23. Spencer JR (1998) The Corpus Juris project and the fight against budgetary fraud, In: Dashwood A, Ward A (eds) Cambridge Yearbook of European legal studies. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Vol. 1, pp. 77–105Google Scholar
  24. Spencer JR (2012) Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad European Public Prosecutor? In: Barnard C et al (eds) Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. Hart Publishing, Oxford, Vol. 14. pp 367–371Google Scholar
  25. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (2013) 9th Term, 345th Resolution on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Senate Press no. N 082/09. http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/scrutiny/COM20120629/czsen.do Last accessed 22 March 2017
  26. Thorhauer NI (2015) Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Criminal Cases in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Risks and Opportunities from an Individual Rights-Oriented Perspective. New Journal of European Criminal Law 6:78–101Google Scholar
  27. Vervaele JAE (2013) Gathering and Use of Evidence in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, with Special Regard to EU Fraud and OLAF Investigations. In: Nowak C (ed) Evidence in EU Fraud Cases. Wolters Kluwer Polska, pp 21–56Google Scholar
  28. Weyembergh A et al (2014) The Inter-Agency Cooperation and Future Architecture of the EU Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Area (Policy Department C). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/510000/IPOL_STU(2014)510000_EN.pdf. Last accessed 22 March 2017
  29. Weyembergh A et al (2016) Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Policy Department C). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571399/IPOL_STU(2016)571399_EN.pdf. Last accessed 22 March 2017
  30. Zeder F (2014) Gegenseitige Anerkennung in Strafsachen, Teil 1: Status Quo. Journal für Strafrecht 3:233–237Google Scholar
  31. Zeder F (2015) Gegenseitige Anerkennung in Strafsachen, Teil 2: Mängel, Lücken, Entwicklungspotential. Journal für Strafrecht 1:25–26Google Scholar
  32. Zwiers M (2011) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: Analysis of a Multilevel Criminal Justice System. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations