1. Welcome to Maastricht University

2. Faculty of Law Oral v. written evidence in the European Union Prof. André Klip Maastricht University, Ravenna 14 May 2011

3. Faculty of Law Cornerstones, internal markets and areas of freedom, security and justice European integration and criminal law An internal market principle Free flow of “criminal products”? Can criminal law deal with the principle?

4. Faculty of Law Compatibility of two convergent areas Internal market Area of freedom, security and justice Whose interests are protected by mutual recognition? Member States’ interests v. the accused

5. Faculty of Law What is mutual recognition? No definition Relationship with the five freedoms –Services –Workers –Goods –Capital –Residence (Art. 21 TFEU) EU-citizen entitled to fundamental freedoms Charter of Fundamental Rights

6. Faculty of Law Examples of mutual recognition Driving licenses Regulation 44/2001 on civil judgments Ne bis in idem European arrest warrant

7. Faculty of Law What questions are raised? Who recognizes whom? What is being recognized? What is recognition? What is mutual recognition?

8. Faculty of Law Absolute recognition? What discretion do Member States have not to recognise? -Prevailing obligations -Obvious shortcomings -Applicable grounds for refusal -Irreconcilable decisions See Klip, European Criminal Law, p. 330-353

9. Faculty of Law EEW-1 (FD 2008/978) Implementation period lapsed 19 January 2011 EEW is parallel to the regular international cooperation in criminal matters EEW is a judicial decision concerning existing evidence (Art.4 par. 4): NB: not a request to collect new evidence Evidence = objects, documents, data

10. Faculty of Law EEW-2 EEW may only concern evidence which could be obtained under the law of the issuing Member State (art.7) Executing Member State must execute, unless art. 13 Abolition of double criminality, list offences (art.14) Absent: - standarisation of the collection of evidence - the conclusions to be drawn from admissible evidence

11. Faculty of Law EEW-3 European Investigation Order Member States are negotiating a new Directive Differences with the FD EEW

12. Faculty of Law On-line consultation of data Prüm and Decisions 2008/615 en 2008/616 Availability principle => standarisation on DNA (art.7 Decision 2008/616 + Annex); and on finger prints (art. 12 Decision 2008/616 + Annex), license plates First stage, investigatory purposes, no collection of evidence yet Conditional of purpose: art.26 Decision 2008/615 Limitation of access: specialists only (art.30 Decision 2008/615)

13. Faculty of Law Division of tasks Issuing Member State –Grounds/ necessity of EEW –Applicability of list offence Executing Member State –Application of grounds for refusal –Double criminality (non list offences) –Purpose within the Framework Decision? –Assessment of the interests of the requested person

14. Faculty of Law Article 82, par. 1 – a closer look Judicial cooperation based on mutual recognition Approximation Measures to: –A. ensure recognition –B. prevent/settle conflicts of jurisdiction –C. support training judiciary –D. facilitate cooperation

15. Faculty of Law Article 82, par. 2 TFEU Minimum rules to facilitate mutual recognition: –A. mutual admissibility of evidence –B. rights of individuals in criminal procedure –C. rights of victims of crime –D. any other aspect

16. Faculty of Law The emergency break Articles 82, par. 3 and 83, par. 3 TFEU Draft Directive affecting fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system

17. Faculty of Law Proliferation of Mutual Recognition Transitionary period of EAW comes to an end MR in all areas of cooperation –see FD’s to be implemented –Art. 82 TFEU Co-existence of alternatives requires a new balance to be found Conflicting MR warrants

18. Faculty of Law Character of EU law on evidence Predominantly influenced by civil law Predominantly influenced by the internal market (see for instance Directive 2011/16 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation) Focus on written evidence However: Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings

19. Faculty of Law Future perspectives Further development of common criminal policy –in legislation => more influence on national criminal law –in establishing structures More intensive cooperation Separate EU criminal justice system Balance between the internal market and the area of freedom, security and justice