EU Latin America Collaboration on Cross-Border Cooperation ...
EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in … › PageFiles › 6335 ›...
Transcript of EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in … › PageFiles › 6335 ›...
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
t. +32 9 264 97 02
f. +32 9 264 69 71
EU cross-border gathering and use of
evidence in criminal matters in the EU
12 May 2014
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
t. +32 9 264 97 02
f. +32 9 264 69 71
EU cross-border gathering and use of
evidence in criminal matters in the EU
12 May 2014
cooperation
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
3
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
4
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Obtaining existing evidence
- House search
- Freezing order (with 3rd 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
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
5
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
6
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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)
- …
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
7
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
8
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Locus Regit Actum
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
Forum-country
with the court Locus-country where the
investigation takes place
request LRA
result
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
9
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Forum Regit Actum
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
Forum-country
with the court Locus-country where the
investigation takes place
FRA
result
Request with
procedures
& formalities
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
10
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Convention shopping
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Naples II EU 2000 CoE 2001
right to request investigative measures in home country
no provision yes (SE) yes (SE)
right to provide the JIT info available in home country
yes, spontaneous(NS
E)
yes, spontaneous
(NSE)
yes, spontaneous
(NSE)
right to use at home info lawfully obtained
yes (SE) yes (SE) yes (SE)
JIT-obtained info usable as evidence in home country
possible but
conditionable (NSE)
vague (only for ‘info’)
(NSE)
vague (only for ‘info’)
(NSE)
criminal and civil liability regulated
yes (SE) yes (SE) yes (SE)
right to carry & use service weapons
no provision no provision no provision
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
11
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Convention shopping
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Naples II EU 2000 CoE 2001
seconded members
right to be present no provision yes (SE)
(refusable)
yes (SE)
(refusable)
right to carry out investigative tasks
no (SE) possible (NSE) possible (NSE)
representatives 3rd countries & int’l bodies
right to be present no provision possible (NSE) possible (NSE)
right to carry out investigative tasks
no provision possible (NSE) possible (NSE)
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
12
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
13
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
14
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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)
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
15
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
16
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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 evidence gathering
– not for evidence gathering in real time, such as through telecom or bank account tapping
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
17
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
18
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
“You know, sometimes I wish the EU would sit still long enough to allow it to be evaluated”
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
19
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
20
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
21
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Future perspective : a comprehensive MR-based instrument
Comprehensive
32 defined offence list as MR character
Forum regit actum-technique
Some measures: JIT, unregulated measures, spontanious information exchange
Procedural rights persons involved (best of both worlds, lex mitior)
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
22
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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 -> painful considering 2003 priority
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
23
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Need to rethink the entire field
mutual legal ass is tance
mutual recogni t ion
Freezing
EEW
EIO
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
24
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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 CoE and EU instruments
– No ‘judicial’ authority requirement for data protection
author i t ies
offences
capac i ty
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
25
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
author i t ies
offences
capac i ty
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
26
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Traditionally limited dual criminality requirement
– For coercive and intrusive investigative measures only (examples)
Further outroling?
– Limited ‘breakthrough’ based on 32 list
– in Freezing Order and European Evidence Warrant
– continued in European Investigation Order (EIO)
– 32 list approach highly discussable
– Lack of common definitions (EULOCS)
– Not beyond 32 list
– Except through EULOCS
author i t ies
offences
capac i ty
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
27
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
EULOCS – EU level offence classification system
author i t ies
offences
capac i ty
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
28
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
EULOCS – EU level offence classification system
0200 00 Open Category PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
0201 00 OFFENCES JOINTLY IDENTIFIED AS PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
0201 01 Directing a criminal organisation
Article 2 (b) , Council Framework Decision
2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the
fight against organised crime
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.
0201 02 Knowingly participating in the criminal activities, without being a director
Article 2 (a), Council Framework Decision
2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the
fight against organised crime
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 commit the offences in question,
actively takes part in the organisation's criminal activities, even where that person does not take part in
the actual execution of the offences concerned and, subject to the general principles of the criminal law
of the member state concerned, even where the offences concerned are not actually committed,
0201 03 Knowingly taking part in the non-criminal activities of a criminal organisation, without being a
director
Article 5 - United Nations Convention on
Transnational Organised Crime (UNTS no.
39574, New York, 15.11.2000)
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 commit the offences in question,
actively takes part in the organisation's other activities (i.e. non-criminal) in the further knowledge that
his participation will contribute to the achievement of the organisation's criminal activities.
0202 00 OTHER FORMS OF PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
29
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
author i t ies
offences
capac i ty
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
30
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
cooperat ion
domest ic
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
31
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
– 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
cooperat ion
domest ic
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
32
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
– Only possible through common minimum standards also
– Treaty competency EU limited to cross-border situations only
– However often overstepped in recent years
cooperat ion
domest ic
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
33
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
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
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
34
evidence cooperat ion gather ing use conclusion
Questions and discussion
25 November 2013 | EJTN seminar
www.ircp.org
Contact
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
t. +32 9 264 97 02
f. +32 9 264 69 71
IRCP
Ghent University
Universiteitstraat 4
B – 9000 Ghent