Judicial Cooperation Based on a European Evidence Warrant

AuthorMihaela Laura Pamfil
Position1Petre Andrei University of Iasi, Faculty of Law
Judicial Cooperation Based On a European Evidence Warrant
Lect. dr. Mihaela Laura Pamfil1
1Petre Andrei University of Iasi, Faculty of Law, michaela_laura@yahoo.com
Abstract. The assurance of a better judicial cooperation between E uropean Union Member States is a
constant preoccupation of the Council of Europe, taking into consideration that the European Union has set
itself the objecti ve of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. The achievement
of this objective is only possible if among EU M ember States there is a high level of confidence and a mutual
recognition of the decisions issued by the competent ju dicial authorities. The European arrest warrant was the
first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the
European Council referred to as cornerstone of judicial cooperation. It was followed by other measures
designed to create the legal fr amework of the judicial cooperation; some of these measures concerns the fight
against corruption, terr orism, cross-border criminality, racism a nd xenophobia while others are applicable in
any case, such as the order of freezing the property and the evidence. On 18 December 2008, a new
instrument was created in order to improve the judicial cooperation between the Member States: the European
evidence warrant. Its purpose is to assure the obtaining of the objects, documents a nd data which may be used
as evidence in proceedings in criminal matters in issuing State, from another Member State. So, t he aim of
this Fra mework Decision is to complete the provision of the Decision on the execution of orders fr eezing
property and evidence which is not talking about the transfer of the evidence after the freezing.
Romania, like the other European Union Member Sta tes must transpose the provision of this Decision in the
national law by 19 January 2011. That is why we would like to analyse the procedures and the safeguards
provided by this Decision and to show the way we see the European evidence warrant settled in our
Keywords: procedures, safeguards, issuing authority, executing authority, compliance
In Romania, the legal framework for judicial cooperation between the EU Member States in the field
of criminal law is the Law no. 302/2004. This law offers legal base for every form of judicial
cooperation: extradition, execution of a European warrant arrest, transfer of the sentenced persons and
validity of foreign judgements, transfer of the criminal proceedings, mutual legal assistance, execution
of orders freezing property and evidence. Therefore, the dispositions of the Council Framework
Decision on the European evidence warrant must be included in the same law. Taking into
consideration the actual dispositions of the law, we think that the most appropriate place is after the
section regarding the freezing property and evidence but this is quite difficult. The successive
modification of the law led to a count of articles using exponents and is difficult to insert new articles
into a sequence of exponents. The regulation of the European evidence warrant should be inserted
after the Article 18733 and before Article 18734. It is possible to use letters as exponents, as well as in
the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of the underage arrest term, but the best way to solve the
problem is, in our opinion, the republication of the law using a new counting of the articles. In a new
form of the law, the European evidence warrant together with the order of freezing property and
evidence should be the object of a chapter called The Cooperation with the EU Member States in
evidence matters.
The European Evidence Warrant (EEW) is a judicial decision which meant to be used to obtain any
objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters for which it may be issued.
This may include for example objects, documents or data from a third party, from a search of premises
including the private premises of the suspect, historical data on the use of any services including

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT