How is internatoinal criminal cooperation on EU level affected by fundamental rights? "Online Conference “European Investigation Order – Legal Analysis and Practical Dilemmas”,

1. Rights of th
e
defenc
e
an
d
th
e
Europea
n
Investigation Order
Nicola Canestrini
Future of mutaL recognition and
Judicial Cooeopration in Criminal
Maters in the Eu - December 8-9,
2020

2. “Feindstrafrecht”
“internationa
l
crimina
l
law
enforcement need
s
canno
t
prejudic
e
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
”
Italian Constitutional court, judgement 280/1985

3. “Constitution
s
ar
e
chain
s
wit
h
whic
h
me
n
bin
d
themselves i
n
their san
e
moment
s
tha
t
the
y
may no
t
di
e
b
y
a
suicida
l
han
d
i
n
th
e
day of their
fre
nz
y
.”
John Potter Stockton, 1871

4. area
freedom, justice
security
post Tampere 1999
right
s
trus
t
mutua
l
recognitio
n
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
th
e
right
s
of individual
s
i
n
crimina
l
procedur
e
(ar
t
82
TFEU)

5. “Feindstrafrecht”
EU & fundamental rights?
art
t
. 2/6 Treat
y
of Europea
n
Unio
n
53 Chart
a
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s

6. “Although all the Member States are
party to the ECHR, experience has
shown that that alone does not
always provide a sufficient degree of
trust in the criminal justice systems
of other Member States.”
(considerandum n. 6 dir. 64; considerando n. 7 dir. 13; considerando n. 5 dir. 48
Why EU
procedura
l right
s
?
“Strengthening mutual trust requires a more consistent
implementation of the rights and guarantees set out in Article 6 of
the ECHR. It also requires, by means of this Directive and other
measures, further development within the Union of the minimum
standards set out in the ECHR and the Charter.”
(considerandum n. 7 Dir. 64; considerando n. 8 Dir. 13; considerando n. 6 Dir. 48 ..

7. “no
t
right
s
tha
t
ar
e
theoretica
l
or
illusor
y
bu
t
right
s
tha
t
ar
e
practica
l
an
d
e
ff
ectiv
e
”
ECtHR, Artico v Italy judgment (1980)

8. Fundamenta
l
right
s
i
n
EU
mutua
l
recognitio
n
instrument
s
: E
A
W
Poltora
k
c
as
e
c
-452/16 (2016)
Opinio
n
2/13
acc
es
sio
n
EU
t
o
ECHR
A
rany
os
i
Caldarar
u
c
-404/15 (2016)
an
d
development
s

9. Fundamenta
l
right
s
i
n
EU
mutual recognitio
n
instrument
s
: EIO
Gavanozov Cas
e
C-324/17 october 2019
Lega
l
remedie
s
?
Re
fu
sa
l
groun
d
of
potentia
l
violatio
n
of
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
(11.1 (f)
A
an
d
Other
s
c
-584/19 (2020)
Issuin
g
authorit
y

10. Blind trust?
EAW experience

11. Th
e
creatio
n
of a
n
are
a
of freedo
m
, securit
y
an
d
justic
e
withi
n
th
e
Unio
n
i
s
base
d
o
n
mutua
l
con
fi
denc
e
an
d
a
presumptio
n
of
complianc
e
b
y
other Member State
s
wit
h
Unio
n
law an
d
, i
n
particular, wit
h
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
. However, tha
t
presumptio
n
i
s
rebuttabl
e
. Consequentl
y
, if ther
e
are su
bs
tantia
l
ground
s
for believin
g
tha
t
th
e
ex
ecutio
n
of a
n
investigativ
e
measur
e
indicate
d
i
n
th
e
EIO
woul
d
resul
t
i
n
a
breac
h
of
a
fu
ndamental righ
t
of th
e
perso
n
concerne
d
an
d
tha
t
th
e
ex
ecutin
g
Stat
e
would disregar
d
it
s
obligation
s
concernin
g
th
e
protectio
n
of
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
recognise
d
i
n
th
e
Charter, th
e
ex
ecutio
n
of th
e
EIO shoul
d
b
e
re
fu
se
d
.
EIO DIRECTIVE 2014/41 (cons. 19)
(EAW FD, 10)
The mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high
level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation
may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent
breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in
Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, determined by the
Council (..)
EIO

12. EIO .. fro
m
blin
d
trus
t
fundamental
rights
protection
“rebuttable” presumption
of compliance of member
states with fundamental
rights (§ 19)
specificity of national
systems
proportionality
principle (double
check)
primacy of EU law
BUT protection of
national constitution’s
principles
t
o
distrus
t
?

13. Nationa
l court
s
?

15. "
Th
os
e
wh
o
woul
d
giv
e
up
es
sentia
l
Libert
y
,
t
o
purch
as
e
a
littl
e
temporary Safet
y
,
d
es
erv
e
neither Libert
y
nor Safet
y
."
Benjamin Franklin, 1755

16. canestrin
i
L
ex
.comt @canestriniLex in canestriniLex f canestriniLex