The issue of international cooperation in criminal matters has interested legal theorists and practitioners for decades. In this area of law there are certain challenges that can only be tackled by using the joint efforts of the States, which is different from the national law of the States. For this reason, certain principles of law are specific for international cooperation, and on the basis of these principles States provide legal assistance requests to each other or else create preconditions to ensure the efficient and unimpeded criminal proceedings. It is true that the principles of mutual legal assistance and recognition, and the influence of their alternation are not identical to all segments of international cooperation, including the development of the evidence law in the European Union.
With regard to the evidence and their admissibility in Member States of the European Union, it should be noted that this issue is still relevant, because the biggest concern of some Member States is the admissibility of evidence, when evidence is collected in one State and the admissibility of them is assessed in the other State. It would seem like a more formalized “concern”, but basically it is a quite significant impulse for searching of new legal instruments in the European Union, which would be able not only ensure the acceptability (admissibility) of evidence that was collected in the foreign State in accordance with the relevant procedural form, and in the court of the State which obtained this evidence, but also the sovereignty of the State, the authenticity of the national law, and the respect for the legal culture and traditions of this State.
The authors discuss the development of the law of evidence, the separate legal segments of this law, and their strengths and weaknesses in the article. Despite the fact that the effective mechanisms of evidence movement among Member States appear in modern European Union criminal justice, the latest legal instruments lack the clarity and certainty of certain procedural legal guarantees in the context of human rights protection.
1. Bachmaier Winter, Lorena. “European Investigation Order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings. Study of the proposal for European Directive.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik – www.zis-online.com (2010): 580–589.
2. Belfiore, Rosanna. “Movement of Evidence in the EU: The Present Scenario and Possible Future Developments.” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 17(2009): 1–22.
3. Farries, Anthony. “The European Investigation Order: stepping forward with care.” New Journal of European Criminal Law 1 (2010): 425–432.
5. González, Joaquín González-Herrero, and Maria Madalina Butincu. “The Collection of Evidence by OLAF and Its Transmission to the National Judicial Authorities.” The European Criminal Law Association‘s Forum (EUCRIM) 3 (2009): 90–94.
6. Hetzer, Wolfgang. “National Criminal Prosecution and European Tendering of Evidence. Perspectives of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 12/2 (2004): 166–189.
7. Hildebrandt, Mireille. “European Criminal Law and European Identity.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (2007): 57–78.
8. Karsai, Krisztina. “The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the International Cooperation in Criminal Matters.” Zbornik radova Pravnogo fakulteta u Novom Sadu 1-2 (2008): 941–953.
9. Klimek, Libor. “Free Movement of Evidence in Criminal Matters in the EU.” The Lawyer Quarterly 4 (2012): 250–290.
10. Klip, André. Criminal Law in the European Union. Deventer, Kluwer, 2004.
11. Lach, Arkadiusz. “Transnational Gathering of Evidence in Criminal Cases in the EU de lege lata and de lege ferenda.” The European Criminal Law Association’s Forum (EUCRIM) 3 (2009): 107–110.
12. Mangiaracina, Annalisa. “A New and Controversial Scenario in the Gathering of Evidence at the European Level. The Proposal for a Directive on the European Investigation Order.” Utrecht Law Review 10 (2014): 113–133.
14. Murphy, Cian C. “The European Evidence Warrant: Mutual Recognition and Mutual (Dis)Trust?” Social Science Research Network 3 (2010): 1–25.
15. Murray, Christopher. “The Impact of the Proposed European Evidence Warrant on the Rights of Suspects, Defendants and Innocent third Parties”: 48–69. In: Marisa Leaf, ed. Cross-Border Crime. Defence Rights in a New Era of International Judicial Co-operation. London: Justice, 2006.
16. Ruggeri, Stefano. “Introduction to the Proposal of a European Investigation Order: Due Process Concerns and Open Issues”: 4–25. In: Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Developments in EU Legislation and New Challenges for Human Rights-Oriented Criminal Investigations in Cross-border Cases. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
18. Staes, Dorothea. “The Interrogation of Witnesses abroad in Execution of a European Investigation Order. An Examination from the Eyes of the Defence.” EIUC European Inter-University Center for Human Rights and Democratisation (2011): 1–85 // http://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/6214/1/Staes_2011.PDF.
19. Tomášek, Michal. “Human Rights as Means of Europeanisation of Criminal Law.” Czech Yearbook of International Law 1 (2010): 173–185.
20. Vervaele, John. “Ne Bis In Idem: Towards a Transnational Constitutional Principle in the EU?” Utrecht Law Review 9 (2013): 211–229.
21. Vervaele, John. “The European Arrest Warrant and Applicable Standards of Fundamental Rights in the EU.” Review of European Administrative Law 1 (2013): 37–54.
3. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens – Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme // http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0171.
10. German Bundestag, 17th electoral term. Recommendation for a decision and report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (6th Committee) on the communication of the Federal Government – Printed Paper 17/2071, No. A.7 – Initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council regarding a European Investigation Order in criminal matters. Council Document 9145/10. Printed Paper 17/3234.
12. Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of … regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. OJ, C (2010): 22–39.
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.119 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.113
researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.