Transcript Slide 1

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
[email protected]
cooperation
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
4
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
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
research
publications
consultancy
conferences
www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
8
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
Convention shopping
mutual
recognition
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
Naples II
EU 2000
CoE 2001
no provision
yes (SE)
yes (SE)
yes,
spontaneous(NS
E)
yes,
spontaneous
(NSE)
yes,
spontaneous
(NSE)
yes (SE)
yes (SE)
yes (SE)
possible but
conditionable
(NSE)
vague (only for
‘info’)
(NSE)
vague (only for
‘info’)
(NSE)
yes (SE)
yes (SE)
yes (SE)
no provision
no provision
no provision
www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
[email protected]
9
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
Convention shopping
mutual
recognition
Naples II
EU 2000
CoE 2001
right to be present
no provision
yes (SE)
(refusable)
yes (SE)
(refusable)
right to carry out
investigative tasks
no (SE)
possible (NSE)
possible (NSE)
right to be present
no provision
possible (NSE)
possible (NSE)
right to carry out
investigative tasks
no provision
possible (NSE)
possible (NSE)
seconded members
representatives 3rd
countries & int’l bodies
research
publications
consultancy
conferences
www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
[email protected]
10
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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
[email protected]
11
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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
[email protected]
12
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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
[email protected]
13
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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
[email protected]
14
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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 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
[email protected]
15
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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
[email protected]
16
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
“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
[email protected]
17
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
EEW
EIO
research
publications
consultancy
conferences
www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
[email protected]
18
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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
[email protected]
19
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
Future perspective : a comprehensive MR-based
instrument
mutual
recognition
 Comprehensive
 32 defined offence list as MR character
Freezing
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
[email protected]
20
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
mutual
recognition
Freezing
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
[email protected]
21
evidence
cooperation
gathering
use
conclusion
23 May 2013 | EJTN seminar
mutual legal
assistance
Need to rethink the entire field
mutual
recognition
Freezing
EEW
EIO
research
publications
consultancy
conferences
www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
[email protected]
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 CoE and EU
instruments
– No ‘judicial’ authority requirement for data
protection
consultancy
conferences
www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
Article 2 (a), Council Framework Decision
2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the
fight against organised crime
0201 03
Article 5 - United Nations Convention on
Transnational Organised Crime (UNTS no.
39574, New York, 15.11.2000)
0202 00
research
publications
consultancy
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 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,
Knowingly taking part in the non-criminal activities of a criminal organisation, 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 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.
OTHER FORMS OF PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
conferences
www.ircp.org
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
+32 9 264 97 02
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
www.ircp.org
Contact
Dr. Wendy De Bondt
t. +32 9 264 97 02
f. +32 9 264 69 71
[email protected]
IRCP
Ghent University
Universiteitstraat 4
B – 9000 Ghent