National Criminal Prosecution and European Tendering of Evidence

Hetzer, Wolfgang

doi:10.1163/1571817041107296

Eur J Crime Crim Law Justice

2004

DOI: 10.1163/1571817041107296

|View full text |Cite

National Criminal Prosecution and European Tendering of Evidence

Wolfgang Hetzer¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2016

2017

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EU institutions and academic scholars, the EU still lacks rules which directly address the issue of admissibility of evidence gathered or transferred in the EU cross-border context (Council and Commission 2005;European Commission 2009;European Council 2005;European Commission 2009;European Commission 2010;Gane and Mackarel 1996;Jahae et al 2000;Hetzer 2004;Gless 2005;Asp et al 2006;Gless 2006;Spencer 2007;Kuczyńska 2008;Lach 2008;Lach 2009;Allegrezza 2010;De Bondt and Vermeulen 2011a;Spencer 2010;De Bondt and Vermeulen 2010a, b;De Bondt and Vermeulen 2011b;Heard and Mansell 2011;Vermeulen 2011;Klimek 2012;Kuczyńska 2012;ClaverieRousset 2013;Ruggeri 2014;Ryan 2014;Armada 2015;Daniele 2015;Nita-Światłowska 2015;Depauw 2016). Recent steps, such as the freezing order (hereafter: FD FO 2003), the European evidence warrant (hereafter: FD EEW 2008) or the European investigation order (hereafter: EIO Directive 2014), are aimed at facilitating evidence-gathering throughout the EU and do not make much effort to enhance its admissibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Common EU Minimum Standards for Enhancing Mutual Admissibility of Evidence Gathered in Criminal Matters

Kusak

2017

Eur J Crim Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU, while developing instruments for evidence-gathering in criminal matters, is not making much of an effort to enhance its admissibility. This may lead to situations where, given the differences between legal systems across the EU, evidence collected in one member state will not be admissible in other member states. Due to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty opened the possibility of adopting minimum rules concerning, among other things, the mutual admissibility of evidence, this paper is dedicated to verifying whether it is feasible to achieve various common EU minimum standards for evidence-gathering.Keywords Common EU minimum standards . Mutual admissibility of evidence . Mutual trust . Telephone tapping . House search . EU cross-border gathering of evidence in criminal matters

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Common EU Minimum Standards for Enhancing Mutual Admissibility of Evidence Gathered in Criminal Matters

Kusak

2017

Eur J Crim Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Jurka

Zajančkauskienė

2016

Baltic Journal of Law &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

National Criminal Prosecution and European Tendering of Evidence

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Common EU Minimum Standards for Enhancing Mutual Admissibility of Evidence Gathered in Criminal Matters

Common EU Minimum Standards for Enhancing Mutual Admissibility of Evidence Gathered in Criminal Matters

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About