Judicial Cooperation Based on a European Evidence Warrant

• Author: Mihaela Laura Pamfil
• Position: 1Petre Andrei University of Iasi, Faculty of Law
• Pages: 303-308

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

legislation.

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

303