Search

The study exposes, in a structured way, the essential aspects that sum up and define the set of procedural documents composing the European Investigation Order (EIO). In addition to the dynamics of the procedural document requesting the administration of some evidence, the legal nature of the procedural documents issued by the judicial body from the structures of the requested state is also analyzed, in order to highlight the complexity of the principles of legality and finding the truth at the European level. The content of the study shows the intrinsic and extrinsic elements of an effective judicial instrument in the activity of procedural administration of the evidence necessary to find out the objective truth, in the spirit of art. 5 para. (1) CPP. The contribution of the study in the study and clarification of the researched object is decisive, original, adding an extra step to the act of knowledge of the legal nature and form of the EIO.

The resolution of cases within a reasonable period of time is desirable both for the internal jurisdictional procedures, carried out at the national level, and for the international judicial cooperation procedures. However, it is noted that both over the course of court proceedings in the member states of the European Union, and in terms of the implementation of international judicial cooperation procedures, there are unreasonably long deadlines recorded, thus these long periods of time may render the act of justice ineffective, depriving it of its finality. In the present study, we have lined up a situation in which the Greek justice requested the implementation of a court decision 22 years after the act was committed and 19 years after the decision for conviction remained final. The devastating consequences of this unreasonable term are materialized by the impossibility of enforcing a court decision, finding that the statute of limitations has expired. To all this must be added the fact that the judgment of the Greek court concerned a prison sentence imposed on a minor, and the recognition of the judgment by the Romanian courts involved its adaptation considering that according to the Romanian criminal law minors cannot be punished with imprisonment, but only educational measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the framework of the procedure for the execution of the European arrest warrant, as a form of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, it is necessary to take preventive measures of deprivation of liberty against the person requested by the issuing State. In order not to infringe the right to liberty and security of the requested person, deprivation of liberty through these measures must be carried out in strict compliance with the legal requirements set out in both international documents and domestic legislation of the Member States of the European Union. Compliance with the law can be ensured, however, only by developing clear, predictable legal rules that, as far as possible, do not give rise to different interpretations in judicial practice. From this perspective, starting from the finding of the nonunitary interpretation and application of some provisions of the Romanian special law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Law no. 302/2004, republished), this study addresses the issue of the legal nature of custodial measures ordered prior to the resolution of the request for the execution of a European arrest warrant, respectively prior to the surrender based on a European arrest warrant, ending with a concrete proposal of law ferenda on completing these provisions in order to ensure a unification of judicial practice in the field.

Copyright of Araucaria is the property of Araucaria-Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofia, Politica y Humanidades and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The chosen topic, through its novelty in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, presents both theoretical and practical importance through the procedural-criminal implications it determines. The author analyzes both synthetically and analytically the functionality of the institution of the European investigation order, determining its content, application limits and subjects involved in the criminal trial report, highlighting the aspects of non-correlation of the objective with the intended purpose. The conclusions materialized in proposals to complete and improve the existing legislative framework, represented by Law no. 236/2017.

In the framework of the procedure for the execution of the European arrest warrant, as a form of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, it is necessary to take preventive measures of deprivation of liberty against the person requested by the issuing State. In order not to infringe the right to liberty and security of the requested person, deprivation of liberty through these measures must be carried out in strict compliance with the legal requirements set out in both international documents and domestic legislation of the Member States of the European Union. Compliance with the law can be ensured, however, only by developing clear, predictable legal rules that, as far as possible, do not give rise to different interpretations in judicial practice. From this perspective, starting from the finding of the nonunitary interpretation and application of some provisions of the Romanian special law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Law no. 302/2004, republished), this study addresses the issue of the legal nature of custodial measures ordered prior to the resolution of the request for the execution of a European arrest warrant, respectively prior to the surrender based on a European arrest warrant, ending with a concrete proposal of law ferenda on completing these provisions in order to ensure a unification of judicial practice in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Investigation Order (EIO) is the newest instrument of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union. The purpose of this paper is to analyse this new European initiative regarding an European Investigation Order (EIO) based on the principle of mutual recognition which shall facilitate the gathering and transmission of evidence in criminal matters between Member States. The author present the necessity of an EIO and analyse if it provides enough safeguards for the protection of the fundamental rights of the defendant and the differences between this proposed instrument and the European Evidence Warrant with shows the ECJ jurisprudence tendency. In the end, after presenting some relevant aspect regarding EIO, including the UK”s post-transition relationship with the EU, the paper ends with proposals for the ferenda law concerning the accomplishment of an adequate juridical framework and the application of the legal stipulation referring to international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

This article explores the possible impact of the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The starting point is the clarification that the EPPO is the authority that does not exercise the criminal jurisdiction of the EU, but the criminal jurisdictions of the EU member states bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. It means that not only the relations between the EPPO and the criminal jurisdictions of the EU member states not bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and between the EPPO and the criminal jurisdictions of non-member states of the EU have the character of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but also the internal relations within the EPPO between the criminal jurisdictions exercised by the EPPO. Each of the three different areas of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters is then separately analysed and the analyses are followed by concluding remarks. While the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the EPPO and the EU member states not bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 will probably at least remain on the current level of judicial cooperation between the EU member states, the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the EPPO and non-member states of the EU is at risk of worsening (compared to the current level of judicial cooperation between the EU member states and non-member states of the EU), depending on the willingness of non-member states of the EU to cooperate with the EPPO as a new actor on the stage. On the other hand, the international judicial cooperation between the EU member states bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, i. e. within the EPPO, might be better than the current level of judicial cooperation between the EU member states, partly due to the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (although they are not too innovative) and partly due to the fact that higher level of willingness to cooperate is expected “under one roof” of the EPPO than between the authorities of various EU member states.

This article explores the possible impact of the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The starting point is the clarification that the EPPO is the authority that does not exercise the criminal jurisdiction of the EU, but the criminal jurisdictions of the EU member states bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. It means that not only the relations between the EPPO and the criminal jurisdictions of the EU member states not bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and between the EPPO and the criminal jurisdictions of non-member states of the EU have the character of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but also the internal relations within the EPPO between the criminal jurisdictions exercised by the EPPO. Each of the three different areas of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters is then separately analysed and the analyses are followed by concluding remarks. While the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the EPPO and the EU member states not bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 will probably at least remain on the current level of judicial cooperation between the EU member states, the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the EPPO and non-member states of the EU is at risk of worsening (compared to the current level of judicial cooperation between the EU member states and non-member states of the EU), depending on the willingness of non-member states of the EU to cooperate with the EPPO as a new actor on the stage. On the other hand, the international judicial cooperation between the EU member states bound by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, i. e. within the EPPO, might be better than the current level of judicial cooperation between the EU member states, partly due to the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (although they are not too innovative) and partly due to the fact that higher level of willingness to cooperate is expected "under one roof" of the EPPO than between the authorities of various EU member states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study addresses, from a practical perspective, the freezing order referred to in the Law No 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters and presents some of the steps to be taken by the criminal investigation bodies from tracing an asset for which there is an associated alert, in accordance with the Decision 2007/533/JHA of the Council of Europe of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), and by the recognition and enforcement of the freezing order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The archaeological sites - material forms of our past - are a finite and non-renewable resource of knowledge of our history, in a constant state of vulnerability to external factors that can lead to their irretrievable loss. Among these factors, the most destructive one that can be distinguished is the phenomenon of archaeological poaching as a source of supply to the national and international art markets. The illegal trafficking of cultural goods, often also involving activities of laundering of money or even of terrorism, is a widespread phenomenon worldwide. In order to fight it, the real protection offered to archaeological sites and museums, as well as ensuring the effectiveness of the instruments of international cooperation are the most effective means for defending the national cultural heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study deals with the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, particularly with the letter rogatory as a form of mutual assistance between the states. The study indicates that the cooperation instrument named "letter rogatory" observes the basic principles of judicial cooperation but also includes particularities derived from its specifics. Particularly, the international letter rogatory is regulated differently depending on the legal instruments ratified by the respective state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]