Obstacles and Challenges in Obtaining Evidence at an Early Stage of an Investigation Carried out in Another Member State
Résumé
As the European Union has implemented the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, borders for crime have also often disappeared, making cross-border evidence a decades-old issue in European criminal justice. This article identifies today's opportunities, legal tools, and their obstacles and challenges in obtaining evidence at an early stage of an investigation located in another Member State. The article focuses on the identification of problems in the practical application of the European Investigation Order, European Public Prosecutor's cross-border investigation tools and seeks to answer whether these problems will be resolved by the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 (The e-evidence package) in 2026. In the context of the European Union's efforts to fight crime in a comprehensive manner and in line with the European Commission's Communication of 2008, that confiscation and recovery of proceeds are a powerful means for fighting organized crime effectively and its commitment to support the development of confiscation-related legislative and non-legislative measures1, alternative legal instruments to achieve the "crime does not pay" objective are also being developed, where obtaining evidence from other Member States is also a key issue. In response, the second part of this article analyzes the present-day possibilities of collecting evidence in one of these alternative processes, the civil asset confiscation process, which has its origins in the criminal process analyzed in the first part of this article.
Références
“Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 20 November 2008 – Proceeds of organised crime: ensuring that “crime does not pay”.” COM (2008): 766 final
Armada, Ines. “The European investigation order and the lack of European standards
Bachmaier Winter, Lorena. “Cross-Border Investigations Under the EPPO Proceedings and the Quest for Balance”: 117–139. In: Lorena Bachmaier Winter (ed.), The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Challenges Ahead. Springer, 2018.
Bikelis, Skirmantas. “Modeling the patterns of civil confiscation: balancing effectiveness, proportionality and the right to be presumed innocent.” Baltic Journal of Law & Politics (2021): 27–28.
Bikelis, Skirmantas. “Pakartotinis įtartinos turto kilmės vertinimas – pateisinama viešojo intereso apsaugos priemonė ar žmogaus teisių pažeidimas?” (Re-evaluation of the suspicious origin of assets – a justified measure to protect the public interest or a violation of human rights?). Kriminologijos studijos 8 (2020): 38–56.
Bose, Martin. Study. An assessment of the Commission’s proposals on electronic evidence. (September 2018) // https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/STUD/2018/604989/IPOL_STU(2018)604989_EN.pdf
Boucht, Johan. “Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Presumption of Innocence under Art. 6(2) ECHR”: 245. In: Jon Petter Rui and Ulrich Sieber (eds.), Non-conviction- based confiscation in Europe. Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation in Europe. Duncker & Humblot, 2015.
Commission staff working document “impact assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings
Council of Europe. The Use of Non-Conviction Based Seizure and Confiscation. (2020): 21https://rm.coe.int/the-use-of-non-conviction-based-seizure-andconfiscation- 2020/1680a0b9d3
European e-justice portal. Section “Country-specific information and electronic forms related to Regulation 2020/1783” // https://e-justice.europa.eu/38581/LT/ taking_evidence_recast
EUROPOL. Europol, Does crime still pay? Criminal Asset Recovery in the EU – Survey of statistical information 2010–2014. (2016)
Evaluation report on the tenth round of mutual evaluations. On the implementation
for gathering standards.” New Journal of European Criminal Law 6, 1 (2015): 8–31.
Garcimartin Montero, Regina. “The European Investigation Order and the Respect for Fundamental Rights in Criminal Investigations.” Eucrim 1 (2017): 45–50.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/crime-does-not-pay.html
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD%3A2018%3A118%3AFIN
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/criminal_asset_recovery_in_the_eu_web_version.pdf
Klimek, Libor. “Free Movement of Evidence in Criminal Matters in the EU.” The Lawyer Quarterly 4 (2012): 250–290 // https://tlq.ilaw.cas.cz/index.php/tlq/article/download/49/40
Kusak Martyna. “Common EU Minimum Standards for Enhancing Mutual Admissibility
Magno, Teresa. “The Challenging Path Towards the Establishment of the EU Legal Framework Regulating Cross-Border Access to Digital Evidence”: 23–33. In: Maria Angela Biasiotti, Fabrizio Turchi (eds.), European Investigation Order. Springer, 2023.
Martinaitytė, Laura. Civil asset confiscation law – new criminal policy or restrictions
Miettinen, Samuli. Criminal law and policy in the European Union. Routledge, 2013.
Mitsilegas, Valsamis et al. Research handbook on EU criminal law. Cheltenham, 2016.
of Evidence Gathered in Criminal Matters.” European Journal on Criminal
of the European investigation order (EIO) Report of Lithuania // https://data. consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16308-2023-REV-1/en/pdf
out bounding criminal procedure? Vilnius University, 2021, 76.
Policy and Research (2017): 337–352.
Ryder, Nicholas. Financial Crime in the 21st century. Cheltenham, 2011.
Ce travail est disponible sous la licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International .
The author fully assumes the content's originality and the holograph signature makes him responsible in case of trial.
Users can: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.