Search results

The author argues that the European Evidence Warrant (EEW) has the potential to speed up national investigations in the areas of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. This is because the legislator has taken care to include a wide range of related offences, exempting them from the requirement of double criminality. Evidence will have to be produced within 60 days of receipt of the EEW. However, it must be remembered that the EEW only concerns a narrow range of evidence and that further mutual recognition provisions will have to be adopted if a wider range of…

Dear Readers, I am delighted to contribute the editorial to this new issue of eucrim, which covers different aspects of European criminal procedural law and judicial cooperation within the European Union. Cooperation in criminal matters among the Member States tackles various questions of a different nature, spanning legal, political, theoretical, and practical issues. In contrary to the practice in civil matters, cooperation in criminal matters proves to be more difficult, mainly due to the “traditional” approach linked with the sovereignty of each State in respect of its criminal legislation. However, ideas that have been adopted and put into practice in…

I. Creation of an Area of Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Matters The adoption of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions is a next step in the process of creating a common criminal procedural area within the European Union.1 The principle of mutual recognition is fast becoming a foundation of cooperation in criminal matters among the EU Member States. From the present stage of development of the European Union, it has…

Within a relatively short period of time, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has had the opportunity to address the issue of a transnational ne bis in idem principle in several cases in the EU, and a legislative proposal was also put forward on this matter.1 The increased attention paid to the transnational application of the ne bis in idem principle shows that the judicial authorities of the EU Member States are facing a growing number of cases that simultaneously involve several jurisdictions. The present article focuses on the ne bis in idem principle in the context of an Area…

I. Introduction Concerns about the excessive length of proceedings, especially in criminal cases, are not new, although they are still, unfortunately, very current. Already in the Roman law of Justinian, a two-year limit for the duration of criminal cases was established1. However, it was not until the mid-twentieth century when trial within a reasonable time was established as a fundamental right in Europe. As is well-known, Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enshrined the right to trial within a reasonable time as part of the right to a "fair trial" and, according to Article 13, Member…

The establishment of the area of freedom, security and justice has undeniably led to an increase in people becoming involved not only in criminal proceedings in a Member State other than that of their residence, but, even more so, in criminal proceedings that involve investigative and/or prosecutorial acts in multiple Member States. These so-called “multi-Member State criminal proceedings” have sparked awareness of the need to take measures to ensure adequate procedural rights in such situations. Without a doubt, criminal proceedings spread over multiple Member States run the risk of jeopardizing those procedural rights. It explains the origin of the current…

Introduction The problem of cooperation in gathering and sharing evidence between the EU Member States is not new and has been discussed widely during the last decade.1 The discussion touched upon the question of gathering evidence as well as the problem of admissibility of evidence gathered abroad. The aim of this paper is to shortly analyze the first aspect and to make some proposals for improving the cooperation. Present Situation The system of gathering evidence among EU Member States is still based on the Council of Europe Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters 1959,2 supplemented by its additional protocol…

After the establishment of Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) in international treaties and the implementation of the rules on JITs into German law, JITs will become a more and more useful investigative tool for the law enforcement authorities in Germany within the repertoire of their investigative measures. The aim of this article is therefore to bring this new tool home to the practitioners and give them valuable advice on the conditions under which JITs may be established and how practical problems can be solved both as regards the phase when JITs are established (part II) and during their working phase (part…

Difficulties in Setting Up Joint Investigation Teams The concept of joint investigation teams, as introduced by Article 13 of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 29 May 20001 (“the Convention”), was not entirely new.2 In essence, it allows information gathered by investigators from different EU Member States to be exchanged without making use of a mutual legal assistance request.3 Nevertheless, nine years later, and after the entering into force of this Convention in most Member States, most practitioners lack practical experience and even knowledge of this tool. The lack of joint investigation teams (“JITs”) being set…