<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Тhe regulatory fragmentation and the excessive administrative formalities in the area of international legal assistance in investigation have created the need for a unitary mechanism. This article is focused on the relatively new instrument for international judicial cooperation in criminal matters – The European Investigation Order (EIO). Specifically, it examines the reflection of Directive 2014/41/EU in several Member States of the EU and provides an overview of the separate national systems. The analysis contained in this paper seeks to identify the issuing, the receiving and the executing authorities in each of the considered countries. Main aspects of the EIO’s regulation such as, for an example, its form and content, its transmission, proportionality assessment, deadlines and refusal grounds are seen from the perspective of different national legislations. Although the present study is not intended to be exhaustive, it could clarify to some extent whether an“one-size-fits all” solution in the area of evidence-gathering is an appropriate approach. Special attention is paid to the protection of the right to defence provided by the examined domestic regulations concerning the EIO.</p></abstract>

Тhe regulatory fragmentation and the excessive administrative formalities in the area of international legal assistance in investigation have created the need for a unitary mechanism. This article is focused on the relatively new instrument for international judicial cooperation in criminal matters – The European Investigation Order (EIO). Specifically, it examines the reflection of Directive 2014/41/EU in several Member States of the EU and provides an overview of the separate national systems. The analysis contained in this paper seeks to identify the issuing, the receiving and the executing authorities in each of the considered countries. Main aspects of the EIO’s regulation such as, for an example, its form and content, its transmission, proportionality assessment, deadlines and refusal grounds are seen from the perspective of different national legislations. Although the present study is not intended to be exhaustive, it could clarify to some extent whether an“one-size-fits all” solution in the area of evidence-gathering is an appropriate approach. Special attention is paid to the protection of the right to defence provided by the examined domestic regulations concerning the EIO.

Short Profiles of Different European Investigation Order Domestic Regulations in the European Union

“Neofit Rilski” South-West University

International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Тhe regulatory fragmentation and the excessive administrative formalities in the area of international legal assistance in investigation have created the need...

Short Profiles of Different European Investigation Order Domestic Regulations in the European Union

Online veröffentlicht: 23. Juli 2019

Seitenbereich: 169 - 175

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2019-0075

Schlüsselwörter
EIO, mutual recognition of judicial decisions, national legislation, evidence-gathering, EIO domestic regulation

© 2019 Georgia Papucharova, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Short Profiles of Different European Investigation Order Domestic Regulations in the European Union

Online veröffentlicht: 23. Juli 2019

Seitenbereich: 169 - 175

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2019-0075

SchlüsselwörterEIO, mutual recognition of judicial decisions, national legislation, evidence-gathering, EIO domestic regulation

© 2019 Georgia Papucharova, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Schlüsselwörter
EIO, mutual recognition of judicial decisions, national legislation, evidence-gathering, EIO domestic regulation