Judicial cooperation at a crossroads:The EPPO and the EIO

The FWF project deals with specific aspects of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU. The abolition of border controls in most EU Member States has not only allowed people to travel more freely, but has also led to an increase in cross-border crime. Therefore, it has become an important question whether, in cross-border cases, investigations can be better facilitated by increased coordination between Member States (horizontal model) or by the transfer of certain prosecutorial powers to the EU level (vertical model), and whether and to what extent approximation of national laws is necessary to this end. The Lisbon Treaty provides legal bases for all these approaches, and the project focuses on two of their most important manifestations: the recently established European Public Prosecutor`s Office (EPPO) and the European Investigation Order (EIO). Although the cross-border collection of evidence forms a central element of both instruments, difficulties can arise in the use of such evidence due to the considerable differences between the criminal law systems of the Member States. This is all the more true as the EIO Directive only deals with legal diversity on a case-by-case basis, whereas the EPPO Regulation seems to neglect the problem almost entirely. Through comparative analysis of the relevant literature and case-law, interviews with experts and practitioners, and comparisons of the relevant national legislation of selected Member States, the research examines the impact of the EIO on horizontal cooperation and that of the EPPO on judicial cooperation in the EU in general, as well as their interaction and combined effects. The study thus links two major legal developments at a time when their relevance is increasing and draws on sources that were not previously available for other investigations, thus allowing new research questions to be raised. This comes at a time when transnational investigations under Union law are becoming particularly important due to an unprecedented increase in EU funding (the EUs long-term budget together with the NextGenerationEU recovery funds with a total of 2.018 trillion) and the resulting growth in crime potential. The hypothesis is put forward that come time, the application of the current, rather inconsistent, EU instruments will inevitably fuel debates as to what common standards could ensure a more coherent framework and thus a better standing of individuals in cross-border investigations under Union law.

No additional funding sources recorded.