EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters in the EU 23 May 2013 Dr. Wendy De Bondt t. +32 9 264 97 02 f. +32 9 264 69 71 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
cooperati on EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters in the EU 23 May 2013 Dr. Wendy De Bondt t. +32 9 264 97 02 f. +32 9 264 69 71 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
3 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
4 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar Obtaining existing evidence - House search - Freezing order (with 3 rd parties) - Seizure (often requiring house search) - Order to provide/allow access to Obtaining new evidence - Hearing, confrontation, covert investigations, analysis, expertise Obtaining evidence in real time - Interception telecommunication - Covert investigations - Monitoring bank accounts research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
5 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
6 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition research publications Wide range of traditional legal instruments - Council of Europe Mutual Legal Assistance Convention (1959) and its protocols - Schengen Implementation Convention (1990) - Napels II Convention (1997) - EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention (2000) and its protocols - Swedish Framework Decision (2006) - Prum Convention (2005) and EU Prum Decision (2008) - Framework Decisions on Eurojust (2002) - … consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
7 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition research publications Principal rules of play - Assistance -> Requesting and requested state - Inter-state perspective – i. e. regulating cooperation between states - Double criminality (not general rule) - Locus regit actum & forum regit actum consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
8 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance Convention shopping mutual recognition Naples II right to request investigative measures in home country right to provide the JIT info available in home country right to use at home info lawfully obtained JIT-obtained info usable as evidence in home country criminal and civil liability regulated right to carry & use service weapons research publications consultancy conferences EU 2000 Co. E 2001 no provision yes (SE) yes, spontaneous(NS E) yes, spontaneous (NSE) yes (SE) possible but conditionable (NSE) vague (only for ‘info’) (NSE) yes (SE) no provision www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
9 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance Convention shopping EU 2000 Co. E 2001 right to be present no provision yes (SE) (refusable) right to carry out investigative tasks no (SE) possible (NSE) right to be present no provision possible (NSE) right to carry out investigative tasks mutual recognition Naples II no provision possible (NSE) seconded members representatives 3 rd countries & int’l bodies research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
10 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g to be implemented domestically principal rules of play – between locally competent judicial authorities – Issuing and executing authorities – no more exequatur or transfer procedures – blind recognition – via order+certificate or warrant – dual criminality requirement basically abandoned EEW EIO research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
11 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g EEW EIO research publications 2003 FD European Freezing Order – immediate execution (within 24 hours) – of freezing orders, aimed at preventing transfer, destruction, conversion, disposition or movement etc of objects, documents or data which could be produced as evidence in criminal proceedings in the issuing MS – (also of alleged proceeds from crime, equivalent goods, instrumentalities + objectum sceleris) – if accompanied by standard certificate – no exequatur procedure consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
12 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g EEW 2003 FD European Freezing Order – no dual criminality check for offences – punishable in issuing MS with +3 years – and appearing in the standard list of 32 ‘list’ offences – freezing maintained until transmission – following a separate request to that end (awaiting the EEW) EIO research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
13 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g EEW EIO research publications 2008 FD European Evidence Warrant – logical post-freezing step (even if freezing is often not useful/needed) – execution within strict time limits of requests – for transmission of objects, documents and data – for seizure, transfer, house search – via uniform EEW – no conversion or exequatur procedure consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
14 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g EEW EIO research publications 2008 FD European Evidence Warrant – no dual criminality check if – no house search is required – offence in 32 -list – Germany allowed opt-out -> reintroduction dual criminality check for 6/32 offences – goal: fast/efficient mechanism for obtaining existing evidence – including accounts/transactions not for new evidence gathering – not for evidence gathering in real time, such as through telecom or bank account tapping consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
15 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g EEW EIO research publications 2008 FD European Evidence Warrant – evaluation – not a proper MR instrument – quite useless – only existing evidence – need to rely on traditional MLA in case anything more is needed (which usually is the case) – 5 y of negotiations | no support any longer consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
16 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g “You know, sometimes I wish the EU would sit still long enough to allow it to be evaluated” EEW EIO research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
17 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g EEW EIO research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
18 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g EEW EIO research publications 2009 IRCP Evidence Study – overcomplexity of the environment – combination of MR and MLA instruments – partial coverage of investigative measures – need for benchmarking framework – feasibility of future MR based MLA – MLA flexibility through “widest possible measure of assistance” – incompatibility MR and MLA features (e. g. spontaneous information, JIT, …) – free movement of evidence – usually not covered by cooperation instruments consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
19 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance Future perspective : a comprehensive MR-based instrument mutual recognition ü Comprehensive ü 32 defined offence list as MR character Freezin g EEW EIO research publications Forum regit actum-technique Some measures: JIT, unregulated measures, spontanious information exchange Procedural rights persons involved (best of both worlds, lex mitior) consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
20 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance mutual recognition Freezin g Proposal for a European Investigation order Comprehensive -> hardly more than consolidation instrument in terms of measures regulated 32 defined offence list as MR character Solution for stringency / capacity No admissibility of evidence – solution -> painfull considering 2003 priority EEW EIO research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
21 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar mutual legal assistance Need to rethink the entire field mutual recognition Freezin g EEW EIO research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
22 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar authorities offences capacity research publications A matter of judicial cooperation, by judicial authorities only? – Contemporary landscape blurred (5 additional authorities) – Member state discretion to appoint ‘judicial’ authorities – Often built-in authority-flexibility in Co. E and EU instruments – No ‘judicial’ authority requirement for data protection consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
23 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar authorities offences capacity Distinction judicial vs police cooperation: Artificial, often counterproductive or useless – Notwithstanding the above: often upheld – Europol/Eurojust, EU-US policy, horizontalisation degree, mutual recognition/availability, ECRIS/EPRIS Limited necessity for ‘judicial’ safeguards – For coercive or intrusive measures only – Not depending on authority, but on respecting procedural rules research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
24 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar authorities offences capacity research publications Traditionally limited dual criminality requirement – For coercive and intrusive investigative measures only (examples) Further outruling? – Limited ‘breakthrough’ based on 32 list – in Freezing Order and European Evidence Warrant – continued in draft European Investigation Order (EIO) – 32 list approach highly discussable – Lack of common definitions (EULOCS) – Not beyond 32 list – Except through EULOCS consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
25 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar authorities EULOCS – EU level offence classification system offences capacity research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
26 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar EULOCS – EU level offence classification system 0200 00 Open Category 0201 00 0201 01 Article 2 (b) , Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime 0201 02 PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION OFFENCES JOINTLY IDENTIFIED AS PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION Directing a criminal organisation Conduct by any person consisting in an agreement with one or more persons that an activity should be pursued which, if carried out, would amount to the commission of offences, even if that person does not take part in the actual execution of the activity. Knowingly participating in the criminal activities, without being a director Conduct by any person who, with intent and with knowledge of either the aim and general criminal activity of the organisation or the intention of the organisation to Article 2 (a), Council Framework commit the offences in question, actively takes part in the organisation's criminal Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 activities, even where that person does not take part in the actual execution of the October 2008 on the fight against offences concerned and, subject to the general principles of the criminal law of the organised crime member state concerned, even where the offences concerned are not actually committed, Knowingly taking part in the non-criminal activities of a criminal organisation, 0201 03 without being a director Conduct by any person who, with intent and with knowledge of either the aim and Article 5 - United Nations general criminal activity of the organisation or the intention of the organisation to Convention on Transnational commit the offences in question, actively takes part in the organisation's other Organised Crime (UNTS no. 39574, activities (i. e. non-criminal) in the further knowledge that his participation will New York, 15. 11. 2000) contribute to the achievement of the organisation's criminal activities. 0202 00 OTHER FORMS OF PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION www. ircp. org research publications consultancy conferences Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
27 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar authorities offences capacity Financial capacity – Cost-sharing -> 50/50 for costs above 10. 000 EUR (or lower) threshold? – Costs borne by the requesting or executing Member State (video links, interception, experts) – Extension necessary for: undercover actions – Suggest less costly alternatives – Legal basis to be created Operational capacity – New aut exequi aut tolerare rule? – JIT and Naples II acquis – no constitutional hurdles research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
28 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar cooperation domestic research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
29 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar cooperation domestic research publications – Forum regit actum (FRA) – Conceptual flaws and weaknesses of FRA – No per se admissibility – Grey zone maintained re lawfulness of evidence – ‘ 1 -on-1 only’ solution – Quick wins: per se admissibility – Lawful JIT evidence & reports drafted by foreign officials – Quantum Leap – Not by EIO, simply continuing FRA – Common minimum standards instead of FRA consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
30 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar cooperation domestic research publications – Only possible through common minimum standards also – Treaty competency EU limited to cross-border situations only – However often overstepped in recent years consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
31 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar Thinking beyond borders – Physically, mentally and policy-wise In search of coherence – Integrated judicial and police cooperation – New criminal justice finality as basis for criminal policy Striving for balance – Restore separation of powers – Focus on criminal procedural protection – ‘Judicial’ safeguards where necessary – Giving and taking – Cross-border & EU-wide admissibility via common standards Practitioners’ interest & input badly needed research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
32 evidence cooperation gathering use conclusion 23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar Questions and discussion research publications consultancy conferences www. ircp. org Dr. Wendy De Bondt +32 9 264 97 02 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be
www. ircp. org Contact Dr. Wendy De Bondt t. +32 9 264 97 02 f. +32 9 264 69 71 Wendy. De. Bondt@UGent. be IRCP Ghent University Universiteitstraat 4 B – 9000 Ghent
Скачать презентацию EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in
289fbdcf4755e23dcb975a778bc2d07f.ppt