Movement of Evidence in the European Union: Challenges for the European Investigation Order

Abstract

The issue of international cooperation in criminal matters has interested legal theorists and practitioners for decades. In this area of law there are certain challenges that can only be tackled by using the joint efforts of the States, which is different from the national law of the States. For this reason, certain principles of law are specific for international cooperation, and on the basis of these principles States provide legal assistance requests to each other or else create preconditions to ensure the efficient and unimpeded criminal proceedings. It is true that the principles of mutual legal assistance and recognition, and the influence of their BALTIC JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS ISSN 2029-0454 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2 2016 57 alternation are not identical to all segments of international cooperation, including the development of the evidence law in the European Union. With regard to the evidence and their admissibility in Member States of the EuropeanUnion, it should be noted that this issue is still relevant, because the biggest concern of some Member States is the admissibility of evidence, when evidence is collected in one State and the admissibility of them is assessed in the other State. It would seem like a more formalized "concern", but basically it is a quite significant impulse for searching of new legal instruments in the European Union, which would be able not only ensure the acceptability (admissibility) of evidence that was collected in the foreign State in accordance with the relevant procedural form, and in the court of the State which obtained this evidence, but also the sovereignty of the State, the authenticity of the national law, and the respect for the legal culture and traditions of this State. The authors discuss the development of the law of evidence, the separate legal segments of this law, and their strengths and weaknesses in the article. Despite the fact that the effective mechanisms of evidence movement among Member States appear in modern European Union criminal justice, the latest legal instruments lack the clarity and certainty of certain procedural legal guarantees in the context of human rights protection. way as the evidence collected according to the provisions of the national law of the State (State "B") which obtained this evidence.Based on analysis of provisions of the EU law and scientific sources 2 while investigating the issue of evidence and its admissibility in the EU in the context of international cooperation in criminal matters in this article, the purpose here is to determine what optimal mechanism(s) of legal cooperation of the EU MemberStates would be suitable while collecting and transmitting to each other the evidence, in order that this evidence would correspond the requirements, which are determined for the evidence in the national law of the State that obtained the evidence. Also, considerable attention is given to the ensuring of procedural legal guarantees, in particular the right of defence of the persons that participate in the criminal proceedings. Thi...

Unblurring the Fuzzy Line Between Specialty and Data Protection in EU Mutual Legal Assistance After the European Investigation Order

“…The reality is that the EU persistently lacks trust-enhancing measures in the evidentiary field of cooperation and so grounds for non-recognition and nonexecution remain legion also in a post-MR instrument like the EIO. The possibility of ex-post bypassing thereof in the absence of a generic specialty rule could well be detrimental for its future, especially since the EU has failed to implement Article 82.2 TFEU as concerns the possibility of adopting minimum rules in view of the mutual admissibility of evidence (European Commission, 2009;Vermeulen et al, 2010;Vermeulen, 2011aVermeulen, , 2011bRaimundas and Zajančkauskienė, 2017;Kusak, 2019;Garamvölgyi et al, 2020). If investigative measures, like e.g.…”

Europski istražni nalog kao novi instrument pravosudne suradnje država članica u kaznenim predmetima s posebnim osvrtom na hrvatsko pravo

“…72 Stoga određeni autori predlažu da se omogući obrani prikupljanje dokaza, barem u slučajevima kada se EIN izdaje na inicijativu osumnjičenika, odnosno njegova branitelja. 73 Osim navedenog, neki autori smatraju da se zbog formalizma odredaba iz Direktive države u bilateralnom odnosu (država izdavateljica i država izvršiteljica EIN-a) nalaze u unaprijed programiranoj situaciji u kojoj će obje strane biti prisiljene povrijediti temeljna ljudska prava 74 koja proizlaze iz međunarodnih konvencija, u prvom redu čl. 6.…”

The instigation of hatred: questions of legal evaluation and procedural issues

“…With respect to the issue of procedural evidence that arises in investigating hate speech acts online, specifically regarding obtaining or transferring evidence in cross-border cases, a number of papers by Lithuanian scholars are of note, for instance the publications of Jurka (2019) and Jurka and Zajančkauskienė (2016). The issue has been examined to a much greater extent in papers by foreign scholars (Stefan & González Fuster, 2018;Smuha, 2018;Tinoco-Pastrana, 2020;and others).…”