SEEKING A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO COMBAT TRANSNATIONAL CRIME: A LOOK AT RESEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE JEAN MONNET CHAIR EUVALWEB
Keywords:
Criminal Judicial Cooperation, Mutual Trust, European Investigation Order (EIO), Encrochat Case, E-evidence, Protection of Human RightsAbstract
Purpose: The Jean Monnet Chair EUVALWEB, which boasts the participation of eminent national and international scholars and practitioners, deals, among other topics, with the former cooperation in justice and home affairs (JHA), focusing on the internal security of the Union, as well as of the neighbouring and future Member States. This paper will deal with the JHA, that is one of the main areas that the accession states have to adapt to, taking on an external and foreign policy dimension of the Union.
Design/Methods/Approach: In particular, the fight against irregular immigration and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters have assumed a central dimension of the European space in order to safeguard the security needs of the Union, which are also projected outwards and into its neighbourhood. However, trends, which have emerged from our research, have shown a broadening of criminal offences as a result of the impact of European (but also international) law on national legal systems. Anyway, the prosecution approach to serious crimes affects the freedom and justice requirements, ending up being left to the case-by-case assessments of national judges.
Findings:
Therefore, the expansion of the Union’s criminal competence, via the additional harmonization of national criminal laws in the battle against transnational crime, and the establishment of ad hoc bodies and agencies for the coordination, prevention, and prosecution of crimes, actually conflicts with a number of crucial issues, such as the use of data obtained through the European Investigation Order.
Originality/Value: These issues appear to be caused by the lack of a “system” guarantee within the Union’s legal order itself, as well as the absence of European criminal and procedural rules, which inevitably force Member States, national authorities, and lawyers in general to firmly cling to the core values of their respective procedural and constitutional systems.
Keywords: European Investigative Order, EU criminal competence, JHA, judicial and police cooperation, procedural rights.
About the author: Teresa Russo, PhD, is associate professor of European Union Law, Chair Holder of the 2022-2025 Jean Monnet Chair “EU Promoting Public Awareness on Enlargement, EU Values and the Western Balkans’ Accession” (EUVALWEB), Lecturer of EU Values, Integration and Migration Law (DSG Unisa) and of International Law, Cyber Security and Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (DISA-MIS Unisa), Founder and Director-in-Chief of the online Journal EUWEB Legal Essays. Global & International Perspectives, Scientific Coordinator of the International Credit Mobility project with Albanian Universities, selected for co-funding by the European Commission’s Erasmus+ Programme – Key Action 1 with Partner States since 2018.
References
Alegre, S., & Leaf, M. (2004). Mutual Recognition in European Judicial Cooperation: A Step too Far too Soon? Case Study—The European Arrest Warrant. European Law Journal, 10(2), 200–217.
Armada, I. (2015). The European Investigation Order and the Lack of European Standards for Gathering Evidence: Is a Fundamental Rights-Based Refusal the Solution?. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 6(1), 8–31.
Damato, A., De Pasquale, P., & Parisi, N. (2011). Argomenti di diritto penale europeo. Turin: Giappichelli.
Daniele, M. (2024). Le sentenze “gemelle” delle Sezioni Unite sui criptofonini. SistemaPenale.
De Vita, R., & Della Bruna, M. (2023) Corte Suprema dei Paesi Bassi: utilizzabilità all’estero dei dati Sky-ECC e Encrochat. DeVitaLaw.
Dickinson, H. (2022). The Latest EncroChat ruling from the French 'Supreme Court'. Bedfordrow.
Di Paolo, G. (2024). La circolazione transfrontaliera delle prove elettroniche. PenaleDP, 1–17, esp. 4.
Garcimartín Montero, R. (2017). The European Investigation Order and the Respect for Fundamental Rights in Criminal Investigations. Eucrim, 1, 45–50, esp. 46.
Heard, C., & Mansell, D. (2011). The European Investigation Order: Changing the Face of Evidence-Gathering in EU Cross-Border Cases. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 2(4), 2011, 353–367, esp. 365.
Erbežnik, A. (2023). A New EU System on Cross-Border Gathering of E-Evidence – Analysis and Open Questions. Dignitas, 98, 47–72.
Ferola, L. (2002). The Fight Against Organized Crime in Europe Building an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the E.U. International Journal of Legal Information, 30(1), 53–91.
Favilli, C. (2015). Reciproca fiducia, mutuo riconoscimento e libertà di circolazione di rifugiati e richiedenti protezione internazionale nell’Unione europea. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 701 ff.
Haken, J. (2011). Transnational Crime in The Developing World. Washington D.C.: Global Financial Integrity.
Lavenex, S. (2007). Mutual Recognition and the Monopoly of Force: Limits of the Single Market Analogy. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(5), 762–779, esp. 767.
Liguori, F. (2024). Il principio di mutuo riconoscimento nell’ambito della cooperazione giudiziaria in materia penale: le condizioni di ammissibilità dell’Ordine europeo di indagine penale. Quaderni AISDUE, 1, 1–25.
Mitsilegas, V. (2006). The Constitutional Implications of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the EU. Common Market Law Review, 43(5), 1277–1311.
Nascimbene, B. (2011). Le traité de Lisbonne et l’espace judiciaire européen: le principe de confiance réciproque et de reconnaissance mutuelle. Revue des affaires européennes, 787 ff.
Oerlemans, J.J., & van Toor, D.A.G. (2022). Legal Aspects of the EncroChat Operation: A Human Rights Perspective. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 30, 309–328.
O’Rourke, C. (2020). Is This the End for “Encro” Phones?. Computer Fraud & Security, 11.
Panov, S. (2014). Harmonize, Recognize or Minimize: A Borderless European Judicial Space? The Application of the European Arrest Warrant and Its Effect on EU Integration. The Birmingham Journal for Europe, 3.
Peers, S. (2004). Mutual Recognition and Criminal Law in the European Union: Has the Council Got it Wrong?. Common Market Law Review, 41(1), 5–36.
Pistoia, E. (2017). Lo status del principio di mutua fiducia nell’ordinamento dell’Unione secondo la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia. Qual è l’intruso?. Freedom, Security & Justice: European Legal Studies, 2, 26–51.
Ragazzi, S., & Spiezia, F. (2024). Decifrare, acquisire e utilizzare le comunicazioni criptate in uso alla criminalità organizzata: uno sguardo europeo, in attesa del count-down italiano. Sistema Penale, 2, 203–229.
Riondato, S. (2004). Dal Mandato d’arresto europeo al Libro verde sulle garanzie alla Costituzione europea: spunti sulle nuove vie di affermazione del diritto penale sostanziale europeo. Rivista trimestrale di diritto penale dell'economia, 3/4, 1128 ff.
Salazar, L. (2003). La decisione quadro sul mandato d’arresto europeo: genesi, contenuto e finalità del nuovo sistema normativo, last accessed 15 October 2024, https://www.unife.it/giurisprudenza/giurisprudenza/studiare/diritto-penale-europeo/materiale-didattico/l-salazar-mandato-darresto-europeo.pdf
Viano, E.C. (2010). Globalization, Transnational Crime and State Power: The Need for a New Criminology. Rivista di Criminologia, Vittimologia e Sicurezza, 4(1), 2010, 63–85.
Wahl, T. (2022). Germany: Federal Court of Justice Confirms Use of Evidence in EncroChat Cases. Eucrim, 1, 36–37.
Wilson, J. (2023). Transnational Crimes. In: A. Lautensach, S. Lautensach (Eds.), Human Security in World Affairs: Problems and Opportunities (pp. 335–349). Victoria, BC: BCcampus.
Boister, N., & Currie, R.J. (Eds.) (2015), Routledge Handbook of Transnational Criminal Law, 2015. London: Routledge.
Obokata, T. (2010). Transnational Organised Crime in International Law. Oxford-Portland: Bloomsbury.
Russo, T. (2024). Alcuni spunti riflessivi sull’evoluzione della competenza penale dell’Unione europea e sulle criticità “procedurali” della cooperazione giudiziaria in materia. Rivista della Cooperazione Giuridica Internazionale, 27(76), 88–108.
Russo, T. (2012). Lo spazio europeo di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia nella “riforma” del Trattato di Lisbona. In: G. Ziccardi Capaldo (Ed.), Globalizzazione e pluralità delle fonti giuridiche un duplice approccio, Liber Discipulorum, (pp. 247–264). Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Siegel, D., van de Bunt, H., & Zaitch, D. (Eds.) (2003), Global Organized Crime: Trends and Developments. Berlin: Springer.
Schomburg, W. (2000). Are We on the Road to a European Law-Enforcement Area? International cooperation in Criminal Matters: What Place for Justice?. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 8(1), 51–60.
Wilkitzki, P. (1999). International and Regional Developments in the Field of Inter-State Cooperation in Penal Matters. In: M.C. Bassiouni (Ed.), International Criminal Law. Procedural and Enforcement Mechanisms (Vol. II). New York-The Hague: Transnational Publishers.
Vemeulen, G. (2011). Free Gathering and Movement of Evidence in Criminal Matters in the EU. Thinking Beyond Borders, Striving for Balance, in Search of Coherence, Antwerp-Apeldoorn-Portland: Maklu.
