Called European Investigation Order (EIO) and is a new instrument, when in force, will enable the judicial authorities of a country of the European Union (EU) to order wiretaps, searches or hearing of witnesses in other Member States.
The aim of the directive approved by the European Parliament for days (with 467 votes in favor, 22 against and 10 abstentions) is to facilitate transnational criminal investigations in crimes such as terrorism, murder, kidnapping, drug trafficking, corruption, pedophile networks and human trafficking, among others. The new mechanism is still far from operational, since it will have to pass the scrutiny of the EU Council and to be published in the official journal of the EU. Thereafter, Member States will have three years to transpose the Directive. Even so, this approval is an important milestone in the judicial cooperation between EU countries, putting an end to a difficult negotiation process that lasted about three years.
The determination of deadlines for the review of applications will be conducted through standard forms, is one of the novelties of this instrument.The acceptance or rejection of the application for obtaining evidence shall be taken within 30 days. If merit the agreement of the judicial authorities of the recipient country, the investigative measure should be performed at a maximum of 90 days. If you can not meet these deadlines, the authority must run the application shall inform the issuing State of the reasons for the delay."The decision on the acceptance and the effective execution of the investigative measure should occur with the same celerity and priority as for a similar national processes", determines the directive adopted last Thursday.
"Cases such as Madeleine McCann or Freeport, to give two examples involving two countries - Portugal and England - would have immediately benefited from this Directive by lower administrative and bureaucratic complexity that will ensure," he said in a statement Nuno Melo, the MEP CDS was rapporteur of this proposal.
Currently, there are already mechanisms for judicial cooperation between countries, but these are spread over several degrees, are different from state to state and depend, sometimes bilateral agreements. This Directive harmonises the rules within the EU and sets the operating rules of requests for evidence collection.
Warrant "was a failure,"
In December 2008 a Framework Decision establishing the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining evidence that regulated obtaining objects, documents and data for use in criminal proceedings was adopted. But the fact that this instrument can only be applied to elements of existing evidence and has not been transposed into national legislation dictated their failure.
"It was a failure," says the prosecutor Jorge Costa, an expert on judicial cooperation. The magistrate considers this directive an important step in the "improvement of the collection system and validity of the evidence", but note that it will take too until this instrument is available to the Portuguese judicial authorities. "All documents adopted at the EU slow to take effect. At this point are not yet implemented several directives in the area of law that were approved in 2009 and 2010, "exemplifies the prosecutor.
The legislation now approved also includes situations in which it is possible for a Member State to refuse the application for obtaining evidence, including cases in which it could undermine "core national security interests" or unless authorized by law in their processes similar national. The EIO may also be refused because there is immunity or privilege of the target under the law of the state which will execute the request or no rules on limitation of criminal liability with regard to freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Admits also that the State to which the request was made to postpone his execution when this "may prejudice a criminal investigation or ongoing action" or "objects, documents or data concerned are already being used in other proceedings." The executing authority may also use a measure of different research indicated in the request, this case leads to the same result, "but use less intrusive means."
In principle, the state that executes the request shall bear all costs related to the execution of the EIO, least of "exceptionally high" as those arising from transcription and translation of wiretapping considered.
News corrected to 13h21: where mentioned European Council should read the EU Council
- Posts : 916
Reputation : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 41
But I am glad that this is already possible because the Yard and the PJ are working together, no need to depend on the EU.
This is certainly good news..
- Posts : 1082
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20
That's a big escape clause aka the 'get out of jail free' card.
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
- Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20
G) New interrogation of the Arguidos Kate and Gerry McCann;
As the Portuguese have now re-opened their investigation and it is a 'live' investigation can they (PJ) now apply to the authorities, the EX.mo Sr. Procurador Geral da R'ublica [General Attorney], to 'approve' , via a ILOR to SY/MET, a new interrogation of Kate and Gerry McCann?
Or will we hear from possible 'released' future PJ 'files' that THAT particular ILOR had erm 'gone missing' in the Met's 'internal postal system'?
Maybe the Portuguese have already sent 'dozens' of ILOR to the Met, since they re-opened their 'investigation' last year, regarding/requesting a new interrogation of the McCanns and their holidaying 'friends', we wouldn't know would we?
And Andy and the CPS aren't going to tell us!
They only tell us when 'their' ILOR's are sent to Portugal.
(and 'pretendedly' not acted upon)
- Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07