The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Union is to be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions, which is, since the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, commonly referred to as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the Union.
(3)
Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA (2) addressed the need for immediate mutual recognition of orders to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of evidence. However, since that instrument is restricted to the freezing phase, a freezing order needs to be accompanied by a separate request for the transfer of the evidence to the State issuing the order (‘the issuing State’) in accordance with the rules applicable to mutual assistance in criminal matters. This results in a two-step procedure detrimental to its efficiency. Moreover, this regime coexists with the traditional instruments of cooperation and is therefore seldom used in practice by the competent authorities.
(4)
Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA (3) concerning the European evidence warrant (EEW) was adopted to apply the principle of mutual recognition for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters. However, the EEW is only applicable to evidence which already exists and covers therefore a limited spectrum of judicial cooperation in criminal matters with respect to evidence. Because of its limited scope, competent authorities have been free to use the new regime or to use mutual legal assistance procedures which, in any case, remain applicable to evidence falling outside of the scope of the EEW.
(5)
Since the adoption of Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2008/978/JHA, it has become clear that the existing framework for the gathering of evidence is too fragmented and complicated. A new approach is therefore necessary.
(6)
In the Stockholm Programme adopted by the European Council of 10-11 December 2009, the European Council considered that the setting up of a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued. The European Council indicated that the existing instruments in this area constituted a fragmentary regime and that a new approach was needed, based on the principle of mutual recognition, but also taking into account the flexibility of the traditional system of mutual legal assistance. The European Council therefore called for a comprehensive system to replace all the existing instruments in this area, including Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA, covering as far as possible all types of evidence, containing time-limits for enforcement and limiting as far as possible the grounds for refusal.
(7)
This new approach is based on a single instrument called the European Investigation Order (EIO). An EIO is to be issued for the purpose of having one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in the State executing the EIO (‘the executing State’) with a view to gathering evidence. This includes the obtaining of evidence that is already in the possession of the executing authority.
(8)
The EIO should have a horizontal scope and therefore should apply to all investigative measures aimed at gathering evidence. However, the setting up of a joint investigation team and the gathering of evidence within such a team require specific rules which are better dealt with separately. Without prejudice to the application of this Directive, existing instruments should therefore continue to apply to this type of investigative measure.
(9)
This Directive should not apply to cross-border surveillance as referred to in the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (4).
(10)
The EIO should focus on the investigative measure to be carried out. The issuing authority is best placed to decide, on the basis of its knowledge of the details of the investigation concerned, which investigative measure is to be used. However, the executing authority should, wherever possible, use another type of investigative measure if the indicated measure does not exist under its national law or would not be available in a similar domestic case. Availability should refer to occasions where the indicated investigative measure exists under the law of the executing State but is only lawfully available in certain situations, for example where the investigative measure can only be carried out for offences of a certain degree of seriousness, against persons for whom there is already a certain level of suspicion or with the consent of the person concerned. The executing authority may also have recourse to another type of investigative measure where it would achieve the same result as the investigative measure indicated in the EIO by means implying less interference with the fundamental rights of the person concerned.
(11)
The EIO should be chosen where the execution of an investigative measure seems proportionate, adequate and applicable to the case in hand. The issuing authority should therefore ascertain whether the evidence sought is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of the proceedings, whether the investigative measure chosen is necessary and proportionate for the gathering of the evidence concerned, and whether, by means of issuing the EIO, another Member State should be involved in the gathering of that evidence. The same assessment should be carried out in the validation procedure, where the validation of an EIO is required under this Directive. The execution of an EIO should not be refused on grounds other than those stated in this Directive. However the executing authority should be entitled to opt for a less intrusive investigative measure than the one indicated in an EIO if it makes it possible to achieve similar results.
(12)
When issuing an EIO the issuing authority should pay particular attention to ensuring full respect for the rights as enshrined in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). The presumption of innocence and the rights of defence in criminal proceedings are a cornerstone of the fundamental rights recognised in the Charter within the area of criminal justice. Any limitation of such rights by an investigative measure ordered in accordance with this Directive should fully conform to the requirements established in Article 52 of the Charter with regard to the necessity, proportionality and objectives that it should pursue, in particular the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(13)
With a view to ensuring the transmission of the EIO to the competent authority of the executing State, the issuing authority may make use of any possible or relevant means of transmission, for example the secure telecommunications system of the European Judicial Network, Eurojust, or other channels used by judicial or law enforcement authorities.
(14)
When making a declaration concerning the language regime, Member States are encouraged to include at least one language which is commonly used in the Union other than their official language(s).
(15)
This Directive should be implemented taking into account Directives 2010/64/EU (5), 2012/13/EU (6), and 2013/48/EU (7) of the European Parliament and of the Council, which concern procedural rights in criminal proceedings.
(16)
Non-coercive measures could be, for example, such measures that do not infringe the right to privacy or the right to property, depending on national law.
(17)
The principle of ne bis in idem is a fundamental principle of law in the Union, as recognised by the Charter and developed by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore the executing authority should be entitled to refuse the execution of an EIO if its execution would be contrary to that principle. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings underlying an EIO, its execution should not be subject to refusal where it is aimed to establish whether a possible conflict with the ne bis in idem principle exists, or where the issuing authority has provided assurances that the evidence transferred as a result of the execution of the EIO would not be used to prosecute or impose a sanction on a person whose case has been finally disposed of in another Member State for the same facts.
(18)
As in other mutual recognition instruments, this Directive does not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Charter. In order to make this clear, a specific provision is inserted in the text.
(19)
The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice within the Union is based on mutual confidence and a presumption of compliance by other Member States with Union law and, in particular, with fundamental rights. However, that presumption is rebuttable. Consequently, if there are substantial grounds for believing that the execution of an investigative measure indicated in the EIO would result in a breach of a fundamental right of the person concerned and that the executing State would disregard its obligations concerning the protection of fundamental rights recognised in the Charter, the execution of the EIO should be refused.
(20)
It should be possible to refuse an EIO where its recognition or execution in the executing State would involve a breach of an immunity or privilege in that State. There is no common definition of what constitutes an immunity or privilege in Union law,; the precise definition of these terms is therefore left to national law, which may include protections which apply to medical and legal professions, but should not be interpreted in a way to counter the obligation to abolish certain grounds for refusal as set out in the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (8). This may also include, even though they are not necessarily considered as privilege or immunity, rules relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media.
(21)
Time limits are necessary to ensure quick, effective and consistent cooperation between the Member States in criminal matters. The decision on the recognition or execution, as well as the actual execution of the investigative measure, should be carried out with the same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case. Time limits should be provided to ensure a decision or execution within reasonable time or to meet procedural constraints in the issuing State.
(22)
Legal remedies available against an EIO should be at least equal to those available in a domestic case against the investigative measure concerned. In accordance with their national law Member States should ensure the applicability of such legal remedies, including by informing in due time any interested party about the possibilities and modalities for seeking those legal remedies. In cases where objections against the EIO are submitted by an interested party in the executing State in respect of the substantive reasons for issuing the EIO, it is advisable that information about such challenge be transmitted to the issuing authority and that the interested party be informed accordingly.
(23)
The expenses incurred in the territory of the executing State for the execution of an EIO should be borne exclusively by that State. This arrangement complies with the general principle of mutual recognition. However, the execution of an EIO may incur exceptionally high costs on the executing State. Such exceptionally high costs may, for example, be complex experts' opinions or extensive police operations or surveillance activities over a long period of time. This should not impede the execution of the EIO and the issuing and executing authorities should seek to establish which costs are to be considered as exceptionally high. The issue of costs might become subject to consultations between the issuing State and the executing State and they are recommended to resolve this issue during the consultations stage. As a last resort, the issuing authority may decide to withdraw the EIO or to maintain it, and the part of the costs which are estimated exceptionally high by the executing State and absolutely necessary in the course of the proceedings, should be covered by the issuing State. The given mechanism should not constitute an additional ground for refusal, and in any event should not be abused in a way to delay or impede the execution of the EIO.
(24)
The EIO establishes a single regime for obtaining evidence. Additional rules are however necessary for certain types of investigative measures which should be indicated in the EIO, such as the temporary transfer of persons held in custody, hearing by video or telephone conference, obtaining of information related to bank accounts or banking transactions, controlled deliveries or covert investigations. Investigative measures implying a gathering of evidence in real time, continuously and over a certain period of time should be covered by the EIO, but, where necessary, practical arrangements should be agreed between the issuing State and the executing State in order to accommodate the differences existing in the national laws of those States.
(25)
This Directive sets out rules on carrying out, at all stages of criminal proceedings, including the trial phase, of an investigative measure, if needed with the participation of the person concerned with a view to collecting evidence. For example an EIO may be issued for the temporary transfer of that person to the issuing State or for the carrying out of a hearing by videoconference. However, where that person is to be transferred to another Member State for the purposes of prosecution, including bringing that person before a court for the purpose of the standing trial, a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) should be issued in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (9).
(26)
With a view to the proportionate use of an EAW, the issuing authority should consider whether an EIO would be an effective and proportionate means of pursuing criminal proceedings. The issuing authority should consider, in particular, whether issuing an EIO for the hearing of a suspected or accused person by videoconference could serve as an effective alternative.
(27)
An EIO may be issued in order to obtain evidence concerning the accounts, of whatever nature, held in any bank or any non-banking financial institution by a person subject to criminal proceedings. This possibility is to be understood broadly as comprising not only suspected or accused persons but also any other person in respect of whom such information is found necessary by the competent authorities in the course of criminal proceedings.
(28)
Where in this Directive a reference is made to financial institutions, this term should be understood according to the relevant definition of Article 3 of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (10).
(29)
When an EIO is issued to obtain ‘details’ of a specified account, ‘details’ should be understood to include at least the name and address of the account holder, details of any powers of attorney held over the account, and any other details or documents provided by the account holder when the account was opened and that are still held by the bank.
(30)
Possibilities to cooperate under this Directive on the interception of telecommunications should not be limited to the content of the telecommunications, but could also cover collection of traffic and location data associated with such telecommunications, allowing competent authorities to issue an EIO for the purpose of obtaining less intrusive data on telecommunications. An EIO issued to obtain historical traffic and location data related to telecommunications should be dealt with under the general regime related to the execution of the EIO and may be considered, depending on the national law of the executing State, as a coercive investigative measure.
(31)
Where several Member States are in a position to provide the necessary technical assistance, an EIO should be sent only to one of them and priority should be given to the Member State where the person concerned is located. Member States where the subject of the interception is located and from which no technical assistance is needed to carry out the interception should be notified thereof in accordance with this Directive. However, where the technical assistance may not be received from merely one Member State, an EIO may be transmitted to more than one executing State.
(32)
In an EIO containing the request for interception of telecommunications the issuing authority should provide the executing authority with sufficient information, such as details of the criminal conduct under investigation, in order to allow the executing authority to assess whether that investigative measure, would be authorised in a similar domestic case.
(33)
Member States should have regard to the importance of ensuring that technical assistance can be provided by a service provider operating publicly available telecommunications networks and services in the territory of the Member State concerned, in order to facilitate cooperation under this instrument in relation to the lawful interception of telecommunications.
(34)
This Directive, by virtue of its scope, deals with provisional measures only with a view to gathering evidence. In this respect, it should be underlined that any item, including financial assets, may be subject to various provisional measures in the course of criminal proceedings, not only with a view to gathering evidence but also with a view to confiscation. The distinction between the two objectives of provisional measures is not always obvious and the objective of the provisional measure may change in the course of the proceedings. For this reason, it is crucial to maintain a smooth relationship between the various instruments applicable in this field. Furthermore, for the same reason, the assessment of whether the item is to be used as evidence and therefore be the object of an EIO should be left to the issuing authority.
(35)
Where reference is made to mutual assistance in relevant international instruments, such as in conventions concluded within the Council of Europe, it should be understood that between the Member States bound by this Directive it takes precedence over those conventions.
(36)
The categories of offences listed in Annex D should be interpreted consistently with their interpretation under existing legal instruments on mutual recognition.
(37)
In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents (11), Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the European Parliament and the Council consider the transmission of such documents to be justified.
(38)
Since the objective of this Directive, namely the mutual recognition of decisions taken to obtain evidence, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
(39)
This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the TEU and in the Charter, notably Title VI thereof, by international law and international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and in Member States' constitutions in their respective fields of application. Nothing in this Directive may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to execute an EIO when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the EIO has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his or her sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, language or political opinions, or that the person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.
(40)
The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. In accordance with Article 8(1) of the Charter and Article 16(1) of the TFEU, everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning them.
(41)
Member States should, in the application of this Directive, provide for transparent policies with regard to the processing of personal data and for the exercise of the rights of data subjects to legal remedies for the protection of their personal data.
(42)
Personal data obtained under this Directive should only be processed when necessary and should be proportionate to the purposes compatible with the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime or enforcement of criminal sanctions and the exercise of the rights of defence. Only authorised persons should have access to information containing personal data which may be obtained through authentication processes.
(43)
In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Directive.
(44)
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(45)
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the Position of Denmark annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(46)
The European Data Protection Supervisor delivered an opinion on 5 October 2010 (12), based on Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13),