Article
Aug 31
Back

„FREE MOVEMENT” OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Milana Pisarić

10.5937/AnaliPFB1602147P
ABSTRACT /

One of the current and important issues of criminal procedural law is a matter of accepting evidence gathered abroad and оf their possible use in criminal proceedings. In this paper, author analyzed a tendency within European Union, as an organization of which member the Republic of Serbia aspires to become, of extending the effect of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions on the collection of evidence in criminal matters with cross-border elements and establishing of a regime of „free movement”, or „import/export” of evidence between Member States.

In this sense, the articles of the Directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO) were critically analyzed, as an instrument of cross-border collection of evidence for the purposes of criminal proceedings. Although the solutions contained in the Directive imply a degree of automaticity in the execution of the EIO as a consequence of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions, we believe that such automatism can not exist with regard to the admissibility of evidence, as whether or not the court in one State accepts evidence obtained through the warrant in other State depends on free assessment of evidence – otherwise, it would constitute a solution introducing elements of the legal assessment of evidence.

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE ARTICLE /
Serbian (cyr)  
REFERENCES /
  • Allegrezza S., “Critical Remarks on the Green Paper on Obtaining Evidence in Criminal Matters from one Member State to another and Securing its Admissibility“, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9/2010, 569-579;
  • Bachmaier L., „European Investigation Order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings: study of the Proposal for a European Directive“, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9/2010, 580-589;
  • Bachmaier L., „Transnational Evidence Towards the Transposition of Directive 2014/41 Regarding the European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters“, The European Criminal Law Associations Forum 2/2015, 47-60;
  • Bachmaier Winter L., „Transnational Criminal Proceedings, Witness Evidence and Confrontation: Lessons from the ECtHR’s Case law“, Utrecht Law Review 4/2013, 127-146;
  • Belfiore R., „Movement of Evidence in the EU: The Present Scenario and Possible Future Developments“, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 17/2009, 1-23;
  • Council Framework Decision 2002/46 of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (Official Journal of the European Union L190);
  • Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (Official Journal of the European Union L190);
  • Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters (Official Journal of the European Union L350/72);
  • Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceeding (Official Journal L280/1);
  • Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (Official Journal L142/1);
  • Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European Arrest Warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (Official Journal L294);
  • Fair Trials International, The European Arrest Warrant seven years on – the case for reform, 2011, http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/FTI_Report_EAW_May_2011.pdf
  • Final Report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations, The practical application of the European Arrest Warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States, 2009, 13-14, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2017132%202009%20INIT.
  • Heard C., Mansell D., „The European Investigation Order: Changing the Face of Evidence-Gathering in EU Cross-Border Cases“, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2/2011, 1-13;
  • Klimek L., „Free movement of evidence in criminal matters in the EU“, The Lawyer Quarterly 4/2012, 250-290;
  • Lööf R., „Obtaining, Adducing and Contesting Evidence from Abroad“, The Criminal Law Reviw 1/2011, 40-58;
  • Mangiaracina A., „A New and Controversial Scenario in the Gathering of Evidence at the European Level: The Proposal for a Directive on the European Investigation Order“, Utrecht Law Review 1/2014, 113-133;
  • Murphy C., „The European evidence warrant: mutual recognition and mutual (dis)trust?“, Crime within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A European Public Order, 224-248;
  • Peers S., The proposed European Investigation Order: Assault on human rights and national sovereignty, 2010, http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-96-european-investigation-order.pdf;
  • Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (Official Journal С295/1);
  • Ruggeri S., „Investigative Powers Affecting Fundamental Rights And Principles For a Fair Transnational Procedure In Criminal Matters. A Proposal Of Mutual Integration in the Multicultural EU Area“, Crimen 2/2012, 147-170;
  • Ruggeri S., Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe, Heidelberg 2014;
  • Ruggeri S., Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings, Springer, Heidelberg 2013;
  • Schünemann B., Observations on the Green Paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility, 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0004/civil_society/eurodefensor_en.pdf;
  • Spencer J.R., „The Problems of Trans-border Evidence and European Initiatives to Resolve Them“, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 9/2007, 465-480.
  • Šugman Stubbs K., „Ocjena dokaza pribavljenih u inozemstvu: teorijski problemi i slovenska sudska praksa“, Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu 1/2014, 111-133;
  • The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security аnd Justice in the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union C53/1);
  • The Stockholm Programme: An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (Official Journal C115);
  • Vernimmen G. et al., „Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union“, 2008, http://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Documents/Advokatsamfundet_sv/Nyheter/Slutrapport_mutual_recognition_eng.pdf;
  • Vogel J., Spencer J.R., „Proportionality and the European Arrest Warrant“, 2010 Criminal Law Review 6/2010, 474-482.