EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 23.6.2026

COM(2026) 313 final

2026/0172 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters and the European

Remote Participation Order (recast)

EN 0 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Criminal activity increasingly involves cross-border elements and poses a serious challenge to

the security within the EU. Criminal networks and terrorist organisations operate seamlessly

across multiple jurisdictions to carry out their criminal activities. Therefore, we need EU

criminal justice systems with effective tools and reliable cooperation to address these threats.

Directive 2014/41/EU1 (‘the Directive’) established the European Investigation Order

(‘EIO’) as an instrument for cross-border gathering of evidence in criminal matters. The

Directive was a response to a well-identified practical need for a comprehensive

framework, based on mutual recognition, for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border

dimension. Since the start of application in May 2017, the Directive has offered judicial and

other competent authorities a valuable tool, which is used extensively used across the

participating Member States.

The aim of the 10th round of mutual evaluations2 which took place between 2023 and 2024,

was to evaluate the application and implementation of the Directive. Backed by data from

Eurojust3 and the European Judicial Network in criminal matters (‘EJN’)4, the evaluation

confirmed that EIOs were used frequently. The evaluation also provided a valuable

opportunity to identify areas for improvement and development, including at EU level. The

final report on the 10th round of mutual evaluations on the implementation of the EIO (‘final

report on mutual evaluations’)5 identified several areas where Member States interpret the

Directive differently or lack specific procedures, particularly: (i) the use of evidence for other

purposes; (ii) the definition of ‘interception of telecommunications’; (iii) the use of technical

recording devices and the relationship between the EIO and cross-border surveillance under

Article 40 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (‘CISA’)6; and (iv) the

use of previously exchanged law enforcement information as evidence. It concluded that these

gaps hinder consistent implementation and called on the Commission to consider legislative

amendments to clarify these issues. Moreover, it highlighted issues relating to the

implementation of Article 24 of the Directive (on hearings by videoconference) and called on

1 Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the

European Investigation Order in criminal matters, OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1. 2 In line with the Joint Action 97/827/JHA of 5 December 1997 (the Joint Action), which established a

mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international

undertakings in the fight against organised crime. 3 The 2025 Eurojust annual report indicates 6 711 ongoing Eurojust cases, including 2 751 new cases, a

close to half of all Eurojust cases: https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/about-us/planning-and-

reporting/annual-report#downloadpdf . 4 The 2023-2024 EJN report on activities and management indicates that, from 2023 to 2024, EJN

contact points reported more than 4 612 cases in which they assisted with EIO-related requests. These

cases constituted nearly one third of all cases where EJN assistance was required: https://www.ejn-

crimjust.europa.eu/ejn2021/ContentDetail/EN/2/67 . 5 Final report of mutual evaluations: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15834-2024-

REV-1/en/pdf. 6 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the

States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on

the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19.

EN 1 EN

the Commission to ‘address at legislative level the question of the participation of the accused

person in the trial via videoconference from another Member State’.

In addition, the High-Level Group on access to data for effective law enforcement considered

that cross-border lawful interception requests pose several challenges for law enforcement

authorities. The concluding report7 suggested exploring how the Directive could better

support efficient cross-border lawful interception requests.

The need for targeted legislative action was also confirmed by operational findings reported

by Eurojust8 and the EJN9, by the report of the High-Level Forum on the Future of EU

criminal justice10 and by the assessment of the effect given by the Member States to Council

Recommendation (EU) 2022/91511.

Relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also clarified

how certain aspects of the EIO Directive should be interpreted and has highlighted areas

where additional legislative clarification is appropriate. Some cases concern, in particular, the

interpretation of Article 24 of the Directive12. They highlight the legal uncertainty as to the

scope, the conditions under which videoconferencing may be used in criminal proceedings

and the extent to which assistance in this regard may be requested under the Directive beyond

the primary purpose of taking of evidence.

Against this background, the proposal pursues two main objectives:

(1) to improve legal clarity and operational effectiveness in the cross-border gathering of

evidence in the EU by addressing targeted deficiencies identified in the application

of the Directive; and

(2) to draw up common rules for requesting assistance to make it easier for suspects,

accused persons and victims to participate remotely in criminal court hearings from

another Member State.

Addressing these shortcomings would contribute to more effective judicial cooperation and

increase mutual trust between Member States.

With regard to the first objective, the proposal seeks to ensure a more uniform interpretation

and application of key provisions of the Directive across participating Member States by

clarifying concepts and procedural rules that have given rise to different national practices. In

particular, it aims to provide greater legal certainty about: (i) the use of evidence for other

purposes and its onward transfer; (ii) the definition of the notion ‘telecommunications’ and

the procedural aspects of the notification procedure for interception without the need for

7 Concluding report of the High-Level Group on access to data for effective law enforcement:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4802e306-c364-4154-835b-

e986a9a49281_en?filename=Concluding%20Report%20of%20the%20HLG%20on%20access%20to%

20data%20for%20effective%20law%20enforcement_en.pdf . 8 Operational Topic on Interception of Telecommunication, Summary and compilation of replies, June 2024. 9 Comments and Conclusions of the 59th Plenary Meeting of the European Judicial Network (EJN) (Prague, 9–

11 November 2022). 10 Report of the High-Level Forum on the Future of EU Criminal Justice:

https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/606f0f38-12f9-4893-8941-

3ac835229bcd_en?filename=JUST_template_comingsoon_standard_16.pdf . 11 Commission staff working document Assessment of the effect given by the Member States to Council

Recommendation (EU) 2022/915 of 9 June 2022 on operational law enforcement cooperation,

31.1.2025 SWD(2025) 36 final, 31.1.2025. 12 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 July 2024, FP and Others, C-760/22, EU:C:2024:574; judgment

of the Court of Justice of 6 June 2024, AVVA and Others, Joined Cases C-255/23 and C-285/23,

EU:C:2024:462; judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2025, C-325/24, Bissili,

EU:C:2025:989.

EN 2 EN

technical assistance of another Member State; (iii) the definition of the ‘issuing authority; and

(iv) the procedures to request evidentiary use of information previously exchanged between

law enforcement authorities or spontaneously exchanged between judicial authorities.

The proposal also sets out rules on the use of technical recording devices and on cross-border

surveillance for the purpose of evidence gathering and clarifies the interaction between the

EIO and cross-border surveillance measures under Article 40 CISA. It also aims to enhance

the timely execution of certain investigative measures, implying a gathering of evidence

in real time, such as controlled deliveries, as well as interception of telecommunications and

cross-border surveillance. This will be done by allowing for provisional execution of such

investigative measures where strictly necessary to ensure they remain effective. This is

particularly important in organised crime investigations, where the use of those special

investigative techniques is essential for gathering evidence. Moreover, the proposal addresses

the deficiencies identified in the EIO form. The proposal thereby aims to strengthen the

practical functioning of the common framework for obtaining evidence in cross-border cases,

including by reducing legal ambiguities that can lead to delays, refusals of execution, or

inconsistent procedural safeguards.

With regard to the second objective, the results of the consultations showed that only some

Member States have specific rules on cross-border remote participation in criminal hearings,

and the content of those rules differs significantly. In some cases, national frameworks do not

even provide for the involvement of authorities from the Member States where the person is

located. This fragmentation is both problematic in terms of protecting the procedural rights of

the persons concerned and hampers effective judicial cooperation. Common procedures,

standards and appropriate safeguards have to be in place so that proceedings are fair and

videoconferencing technology can be used effectively in cross-border criminal proceedings.

This makes judicial cooperation more effective and strengthens mutual trust in the EU Area of

Freedom, Security and Justice.

The aim of the proposed rules on remote participation in criminal court hearings is therefore

mainly to ensure that the right to be present at trial and to participate effectively in court

hearings - as guaranteed under Union law by Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of

Fundamental Rights and Directive (EU) 2016/34313 - is exercised more effectively. In

practice, persons involved in criminal proceedings who have exercised their right to free

movement and reside in another Member State or are temporarily staying there, may prefer, in

the specific circumstances of the case, to participate remotely instead of travelling to attend in

person. Alternatively, they may face legitimate obstacles to physically attending hearings in

the Member State conducting the proceedings, such as health-related limitations, caring

responsibilities, restrictions linked to deprivation of liberty in another Member State, or other

justified reasons. In such situations, the person affected may de facto be forced by their

circumstances to waive their right to be present at their trial simply because they cannot travel

to attend hearings in person, even though they would in fact like to participate. By make it

easier to participate remotely, the initiative therefore seeks to reduce the number of cross-

border trials in absentia and to ensure that exercising the right to free movement within the

Union does not, in practice, diminish the effective enjoyment of procedural rights in criminal

proceedings. In particular, the initiative is also expected to reduce the risks of secondary

victimisation for victims of crime by limiting, where appropriate, the need for repeated travel,

13 Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the

strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the

trial in criminal proceedings, OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, pp. 1–11.

EN 3 EN

unnecessary exposure to stressful environments, or direct confrontation with the suspect or

accused person in cross-border situations.

Second, where coercive measures and surrender are not necessary or proportionate, remote

participation may, where appropriate, constitute an alternative to the physical surrender of the

person pursuant to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA14.

• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The current recast proposal strengthens the EU legal framework for cross-border judicial

cooperation instruments in criminal matters, by filling in gaps identified in the Directive and

by maintaining consistency with other instruments.

The proposed targeted amendments to the EIO are consistent with, and complementary to,

existing Union instruments in the field of criminal justice cooperation, including:

– the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member

States of the European Union15, by setting out a procedure for requesting consent to

use as evidence information previously exchanged spontaneously between judicial

authorities under that Convention;

– the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, by clarifying the

relationship between its Article 40 on cross-border surveillance and the EIO

framework;

– the Directive on the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities16,

by setting out a procedure for requesting consent to use as evidence information

previously exchanged between law enforcement authorities under that Directive.

The initiative is also consistent and creates direct links with the Eurojust17 and the European

Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘EPPO’)18 Regulations, as well as the Council Decision on the

European Judicial Network19.

With respect to the new rules for requesting assistance to make it easier to participate

remotely in criminal court hearings from another Member State by means of a European

Remote Participation Order (ERPO), the proposal fills a current gap in the Union acquis,

which regulates remote participation only in specific contexts and for limited purposes.

Regulation (EU) 2023/284420 creates a legal framework for using videoconferencing and

other distance communication technologies in cross-border proceedings. In criminal matters,

14 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the

surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. 15 Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union,

on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ C

197, 12.7.2000, p. 3. 16 Directive (EU) 2023/977 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on the

exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities of Member States and repealing

Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA, OJ L 134, 22.5.2023, p. 1. 17 Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on

the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing

Council Decision 2002/187/JHA, OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 138. 18 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the

establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1. 19 Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network, OJ L 348,

24.12.2008, p. 130.

EN 4 EN

Article 6 of that Regulation provides a legal basis for using videoconferencing or other

distance communication technology to hear suspects, accused persons, convicted persons and

other affected persons under a limited number of judicial cooperation procedures specifically

identified in that provision21. The new framework sets up dedicated arrangements for remote

participation of suspects, accused persons and victims of crime to participate remotely from

another Member State in court hearings of the main proceedings in which they are involved.

In so doing, it fills a regulatory gap in the existing Union framework on the digitalisation of

criminal justice, which has been limited to digitalising hearings in judicial cooperation

procedures.

Article 24 of the Directive regulates hearings by videoconference or other audiovisual

transmission for evidentiary purposes. Under that provision, an EIO may be issued to hear, by

videoconference, a witness, expert, suspect or accused person located in another Member

State with a view to gathering evidence. As clarified by the Court of Justice, Article 24

applies to hearings for the purpose of gathering of evidence, and whose execution does not go

beyond what is necessary for that purpose22.

By contrast, this proposal aims to facilitate full participation from another Member State in all

types of criminal court hearings at both the pre-trial and trial stage, as appropriate depending

on whether the person concerned is a suspect, accused person or victim of crime. Full

participation entails the full exercise of procedural rights to which the person concerned is

entitled as if they were physically present at the hearing.

With regard to victims of crime, Article 17 of Directive 2012/29/EU23 provides for the

possibility of hearing victims located in another Member State by means of

videoconferencing technology and require Member States to facilitate, to the extent possible

under Union and national law - the participation of victims through videoconferencing, taking

into account their role in the proceedings. The present proposal therefore complements that

framework by setting out specific rules and safeguards on the remote participation of victims

in criminal court hearings, including rules on procedural safeguards, technical arrangements

and effective participation.

The proposal is also fully consistent with the Union acquis on procedural rights in criminal

proceedings. Directive (EU) 2016/343 enshrines, in its Article 8, the right of suspects and

accused persons to be present at trial. Without prejudice to that right and to the standards set

20

Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on the

digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal

matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation, OJ L, 2023/2844, 27.12.2023,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2844/oj. 21 The exhaustive list of legal acts referred to in Article 6 of the Digitalisation Regulation covers: (a)

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant, in particular Article

18(1)(a) thereof; (b) Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners, in particular

Article 6(3) thereof; (c) Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on the mutual recognition of judgments

and probation decisions, in particular Article 17(4) thereof; (d) Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on

the mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention,

in particular Article 19(4) thereof; (e) Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order, in

particular Article 6(4) thereof; (f) Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing

orders and confiscation orders, in particular Article 33(1) thereof. 22 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2025, C-325/24, Bissili, EU:C:2025:989, para. 59. 23 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing

minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council

Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.

EN 5 EN

under that Directive for trials to be held in absentia, this proposal aims to strengthen the

exercise of the right to be present at trial. It does this by allowing persons concerned to

participate remotely by way of videoconference or other distance communication technology

in hearings where strict conditions are met and a number of safeguards guaranteed. At the

same time, the proposal aims to ensure that procedural rights and safeguards which were

designed to be exercised in person can also be effectively exercised remotely, where

necessary.

The new provisions on ERPOs contribute to improving access to justice in cross-border

criminal proceedings. They enable suspects, accused persons and victims of crime who are

resident, detained, or temporarily staying in another Member State for justified reasons, to

participate effectively in criminal proceedings without being required to travel to the issuing

State. In this way, the proposal may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute an alternative to

physical surrender under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, whenever a coercive

measure is not considered necessary in the specific case and the objective pursued is limited

to securing the person’s participation in a hearing or their trial.

• Consistency with other Union policies

The present package of criminal justice initiatives pursues a coherent and complementary

objective: strengthening the Union’s capacity to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute

serious cross-border crime in an increasingly complex security environment. By modernising

the legal frameworks governing cooperation between law enforcement, judicial and other

relevant authorities, the package seeks to reinforce the effectiveness, coherence and

interoperability of the Union’s internal security architecture.

The proposed revisions of the Europol and Eurojust Regulations constitute the core of this

effort. Europol and Eurojust perform distinct yet complementary functions within the Area of

Freedom, Security and Justice: while Europol supports the prevention, detection and

investigation of criminal activities, Eurojust facilitates judicial cooperation and ensures

effective prosecutorial and judicial follow-up. The package therefore aims to strengthen

cooperation and complementarity between the two agencies, as well as with other relevant

Union actors in the Justice and Home Affairs and Anti-Fraud Architecture areas, with a view

to ensuring a seamless continuum between law enforcement action and judicial follow-up

across all stages of the criminal justice chain.

In this context, the amendments to the European Investigation Order framework and to the

data protection rules applicable in the Justice and Home Affairs domain, further contribute to

this objective by facilitating effective cross-border cooperation, improving the conditions for

information exchange and ensuring a coherent legal framework adapted to operational

realities and technological developments. Taken together, the measures proposed in this

package will enhance the Union’s ability to respond to evolving security threats while fully

respecting fundamental rights, the rule of law and the division of responsibilities between the

different actors involved.

This proposal is consistent with related Union policies, in particular for the following reasons:

EN 6 EN

– It contributes to the objectives of the ProtectEU Strategy24, which emphasises the

need to strengthen judicial cooperation and provide more effective tools to combat

serious and organised crime and terrorism in an increasingly transnational and digital

environment.

– It is aligned with the objectives of the Commission Communication

‘DigitalJustice@2030’25, which promotes the digitalisation of justice systems,

including the development of secure digital tools and the use of interoperable

videoconferencing technologies to improve the efficiency, accessibility and

resilience of judicial proceedings across the Union. In particular, the Communication

identified remote participation in criminal court hearings from another Member State

via videoconference as an area of future action for the Commission (Action 9).

– It is part of the roadmap for lawful and effective access to data for law

enforcement26, which committed to assess the need to further strengthen the EIO to

increase the efficiency of cross-border requests for lawful interception.

– It is part of the EU Drugs strategy27, which points out the need to strengthen the EIO

as part of the strategic priority on enhancing judicial cooperation to improve security

and protecting society.

– It is fully consistent with the Union acquis on the protection of personal data, in

particular Regulation (EU) 2016/67928, Directive (EU) 2016/68029 and Regulation

(EU) 2018/172530, as it provides that the processing of personal data carried out

under the proposed Directive must comply with the applicable Union data protection

framework.

24 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ProtectEU: a European Internal

Security Strategy, COM(2025) 148 final. 25 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions DigitalJustice@2030, COM(2025)

802 final. 26 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Roadmap for lawful and effective

access to data for law enforcement’, COM/2025/349 final. 27 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU Drugs

Strategy, 4.12.2025, COM(2025) 743 final. 28 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of

such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016,

pp. 1–88. 29 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for

the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the

execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council

Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89.

30 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No

45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

EN 7 EN

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

The initiative is based on Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

Union (TFEU).

Article 82(1) TFEU provides that judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the Union is

to be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions. It

empowers the Union to adopt measures, among other things, laying down rules and

procedures for ensuring recognition throughout the Union of all forms of judgments and

judicial decisions.

The Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 82(1) TFEU, as with other existing mutual

recognition instruments. Maintaining Article 82(1) TFEU as the legal basis therefore ensures

consistency with the original choice and reflects the objective and content of the amendments

introduced via the recast initiative.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

The Directive is already established at EU level as an instrument of cross-border judicial

cooperation in criminal matters for the gathering evidence. By its very nature, the Directive

addresses cross-border issues, which cannot be effectively dealt with by individual Member

States acting alone. The EU has already exercised its powers by adopting the Directive, and

further action should therefore also be taken at EU level.

As concerns the specific amendments introducing rules to facilitate remote participation in

criminal court hearings when the suspect, accused person, or victim of crime is in another

Member State, the cross-border nature of this issue means that no single Member State can

establish these rules on its own.

The replies to the public and targeted consultations confirm that EU action in this area is

likely to deliver better outcomes than action by Member States. The Council has recognised

that the challenges that this initiative aims to address require action beyond the national level.

This proposal therefore responds to issues raised by the Member States as explained above.

Given the cross-border dimension of the issues outlined above, and the fact that the Union has

already exercised its powers in these matters, the proposal needs to be adopted at EU level to

achieve the objectives.

• Proportionality

The proposal complies with the principle of proportionality set out in Article 5(4) of the

Treaty on European Union, as it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its

objectives. It builds on existing mutual recognition instruments and digital infrastructure at

Union level, thereby limiting additional administrative and financial burdens.

The proposed targeted amendments to the EIO are limited to the concerns identified by the

Council in the 10th round of mutual evaluations and other reports mentioned in the context

section of this Explanatory Memorandum. Throughout this proposal, the options set forth are

those that are least intrusive for the national criminal justice systems of the Member States,

while building on the general framework of the Directive.

EN 8 EN

The proposed rules on remote participation in criminal court hearings respond to requests by

Member States during the mutual evaluation of the Directive. The initiative creates a targeted

framework that is limited to making it easier for Member States to issue and recognise

requests for people to participate remotely in criminal court hearings. It does not harmonise

national criminal procedures more broadly at domestic level. The use of an ERPO in

individual cases remains at the discretion of the Member States, and is subject to

proportionality and appropriateness assessment in each individual case. As a general rule,

remote participation is based on the consent of the person concerned and accompanied by

safeguards to ensure proceedings are fair and procedural rights are exercised effectively.

The proposal also respects Member States’ procedural autonomy as the conduct of hearings

continues to be left to the law of the issuing Member State and certain execution measures

governed by the law of the executing Member State.

• Choice of the instrument

This proposal is intended to provide for targeted amendments to the Directive to address the

gaps, inconsistencies and shortcomings identified in the course of the implementation and

evaluation of the Directive. Given their targeted nature, the same legal instrument is the most

appropriate choice for introducing the amendments, and recasting is considered the most

suitable technique to replace and repeal the Directive.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

The main reference document for the evaluation of the Directive is the final report on mutual

evaluations. The report finds that the Directive has become an effective and widely used

instrument for judicial cooperation in criminal matters across the European Union and that the

system is generally considered to function well. However, it identifies several legal and

operational challenges. In particular, the report calls for targeted amendments with respect to:

(i) the use of evidence for other purposes; (ii) interception of telecommunications; (iii) the use

of technical recording devices and cross-border surveillance; and (iv) the use as evidence of

information previously exchanged between law enforcement authorities or spontaneously

between judicial authorities. It also underlines that practitioners highlighted practical

difficulties linked to the complexity of the standard EIO form, translation issues, and delays in

execution. The report further suggests examining the issue of accused persons participating

remotely in their trial. Overall, the evaluation recommends further legislative clarification and

greater harmonisation to improve legal certainty, efficiency, and consistency in the

application of the Directive.

• Stakeholder consultations

In drawing up the proposal, the Commission conducted extensive consultations in 2025 and

2026. The consultations targeted a wide range of stakeholders representing citizens, public

authorities, representatives from academia, EU agencies and bodies, European defence

lawyers’ associations and other relevant stakeholders.

The consultations consisted of: (i) targeted consultations with Member States’ authorities,

Eurojust, EJN, the EPPO, Europol, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

(FRA), the European Criminal Bar Association and the Council of Bars and Law Societies of

EN 9 EN

Europe; (ii) public feedback on the call for evidence, which included submissions by

academics; (iii) three dedicated meetings with experts from Member States’ authorities31 and

(iv) a meeting with the Commission’s Criminal Law Expert Group32.

Overall, there has been broad consensus that the EU should address the issues identified

through targeted amendments to the Directive.

In particular, many experts acknowledged the challenges associated with using certain

investigative measures for evidence gathering in a cross-border context, especially cross-

border surveillance for the purpose of evidence gathering and technical recording devices (for

collecting location, audio or visual data). There was general support for including specific

provisions on these matters in the Directive. Several experts believed that it would be useful

to define the concept of ‘interception of telecommunications’ in the Directive. Some experts

also saw potential for clarifying the notification procedure for interception without the need

for technical assistance from another Member State.

Stakeholder opinions diverged on whether there is a need to clarify the rules on the use of

evidence for other purposes. However, some experts supported a simplified procedure to set

specific conditions for using evidence obtained and to request the lifting of those conditions in

order to maintain the flexibility and efficiency of cross-border investigations. Several

stakeholders saw a need to set out the procedure for requesting the evidentiary use of

information previously exchanged between law enforcement authorities, while others

underlined that new rules should take into account the differences in national legal

frameworks. Similarly, the consultations showed that national legislation and practice vary as

to when information that was ‘spontaneously exchanged’ by judicial authorities can be used

as evidence, suggesting the need for dedicated rules. The consultations have also

demonstrated the need for further limited clarifications in the Directive, such as on the scope

of the EIO and on the definition of ‘issuing authority’. The need for judicial training and the

development of handbooks or further guidance, especially to clarify the relationship between

the EIO and other instruments, as well as regarding the use of the EIO for the cross-border

recognition and execution of special investigative techniques was also expressed. In addition,

the use of complementary tools, such as the EJN Atlas and the Fiches Belges, was considered

useful for ensuring the smooth application of the EIO, particularly in cases where differences

in Member States’ practices and legislation concerning special investigative measures create

challenges for cooperation. Experts considered it necessary that these tools are regularly

updated to reflect changes in Member States’ legislation, competent authorities, and practical

requirements, thereby ensuring their continued reliability and usefulness for practitioners.

Stakeholders broadly supported the objective of facilitating cross-border remote participation

in criminal proceedings through a dedicated Union legal framework. However, they

underlined the need to preserve the fairness of proceedings and the effective exercise of

procedural rights of the persons concerned. Most Member States and experts shared the view

that remote participation in hearings should be governed by the procedural law of the issuing

Member State with regards in all respects, except for identity checks and the technical

conditions for videoconferencing, which should be governed by the procedural law of the

executing Member State.

Some experts agreed that the same safeguards and remedies as those applicable for in-person

participation in court hearings should apply in a remote context. Most stakeholders

nonetheless underlined the need for specific safeguards, in particular for: (i) the consent of the

person concerned by an ERPO; (ii) the availability of a confidential channel of

31 The three dedicated experts meeting were held on 31 March 2025, 2 July 2025 and 5 May 2026. 32 The meeting was held on 14 May 2025.

EN 10 EN

communication between the person concerned and their lawyer; (iii) specific remedies in case

of technical failures; and (iv) the protection of vulnerable persons and children. These

contributions were reflected in the proposal.

However, stakeholders expressed different positions about: (i) the possibility (and extent) of

exceptions to the consent requirement; (ii) the type of authorities competent for identity

checks and procedural acts in the executing Member State: and (iii) the existence of specific

remedies additional to those already available under the law of the issuing Member State. For

instance, most Member States called for limited exceptions to the need to obtain the consent

of the person concerned in exceptional circumstances, but defence lawyers’ organisations

generally opposed such derogations. The proposal therefore adopts a balanced approach by

maintaining consent of the person concerned as a mandatory condition for the issuance of an

ERPO, while allowing a narrowly framed derogation subject to strict safeguards and judicial

oversight.

A more detailed summary of the outcome of the Commission’s consultations will be included

in a staff working document that will accompany this proposal.

• Collection and use of expertise

Aside from the above-mentioned stakeholder consultations, the Commission collected and

used expertise from other sources.

In particular, the proposal draws on the final report of mutual evaluations, reports from

Eurojust and the EJN, and technical and political discussions of the High-level Forum on the

Future of Criminal Justice.

With regard to rules on remote participation in criminal court hearings, the proposal also takes

into account: (i) the results of a research project on the digitalisation of defence rights in

criminal proceedings which was funded by the European Commission under the Justice

programme33; (ii) the FRA report ‘digitalising Justice: A Fundamental Rights-based

Approach’34 and (iii) the preliminary results of discussions at working conferences on this

matter35.

• Impact assessment

A derogation from the requirement to carry out an impact assessment was considered justified

in the present case on two main grounds: lack of options and no relevant negative economic,

social or environmental impacts. The Directive has already undergone a comprehensive

backward-looking assessment as part of the 10th round of mutual evaluations, which led to

specific recommendations to address elements not yet covered by the Directive and

amendments of existing provisions. The work carried out by the Council during the 10th

round of mutual evaluations led to a conclusion that the range of viable policy alternatives is

limited. The current revision is based on that work. Both the underlying Directive, originally

adopted on the basis of an initiative by Member States, and the proposed amendments are

predominantly technical and procedural in nature. Their impact will primarily be on public

authorities involved in cross-border judicial cooperation. Any impact on natural or legal

persons is expected to be positive, as the amendments aim to strengthen legal certainty,

33 https://www.law.kuleuven.be/linc/english/research/researchdigirights.html. 34 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2025-digitalising-justice-fundamental-rights-

approach_en.pdf. 35 Working Conference on the use of videoconferencing for trial purposes in cross-border criminal cases in the

EU held on 20 January 2026 and organised by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Erasmus University

Rotterdam; 2026 Fair Trials LEAP Annual Conference.

EN 11 EN

improve the effectiveness of existing procedures and facilitate access to justice through the

use of remote participation in criminal court hearings.

As the initiative addresses inherently cross-border issues, it does not raise specific subsidiarity

concerns. Any costs for public authorities linked to implementing the amendments are

expected to be offset by efficiency gains in cross-border criminal investigations and

prosecutions, as well as by reductions in delays, transfers and related operational burdens. As

the initiative addresses inherently cross-border issues, it does not raise specific subsidiarity

concerns. In the absence of an impact assessment, the proposal will be accompanied by a

Commission staff working document to present the policy context, the problem definition, the

policy choice(s) made and the expected impacts, including the results of stakeholders’

consultations activities and future monitoring arrangements.

• Regulatory fitness and simplification

In compliance with the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme

(REFIT), all initiatives aimed at revising existing EU legislation should seek to simplify and

reduce administrative burden on Member States.

Both the underlying Directive and the proposed amendments are predominantly technical and

procedural in nature. Their impact will primarily be on public authorities involved in cross-

border judicial cooperation. Any impact on natural or legal persons is expected to be positive,

as the amendments aim to strengthen legal certainty, improve the effectiveness of existing

procedures and facilitate access to justice through the use of remote participation in criminal

court hearings.

Any costs for public authorities linked to implementing the amendments are expected to be

offset by efficiency gains in cross-border criminal investigations and prosecutions, as well as

by reductions in delays, transfers and related operational burdens.

No impact is expected on SMEs and competitiveness.

• Fundamental rights

The proposal complies with the fundamental rights and principles recognised by the Charter,

in particular the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy and the rights of defence, as

enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter and Articles 6 and 13(1) of the European

Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It builds on the six EU Directives on procedural rights

for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, in particular Directives

2010/64/EU36, 2012/13/EU37, 2013/48/EU38, (EU) 2016/343, (EU) 2016/80039 and (EU)

36 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to

interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1. 37 Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to

information in criminal proceedings, OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1. 38 Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of

access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right

to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and

with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1. 39 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural

safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings, OJ L 132,

21.5.2016, p. 1.

EN 12 EN

2016/191940, as well as Directive 2012/29/EU on the rights of victims of crime.

The Directive protects fundamental rights by embedding safeguards throughout the

framework on the EIO and other measures for obtaining evidence in criminal matters. In

particular, the Directive lays down specific provisions intended to ensure that the issuing or

validation of an EIO is accompanied by guarantees relating to respect for the fundamental

rights of the person concerned. The Directive also allows the executing authority to ensure

that the principle of proportionality and the procedural and fundamental rights of the person

concerned are respected when executing an EIO. In addition, specific procedural mechanisms,

such as the notification procedures for cross-border investigative measures which do not

require assistance from another Member State ensure that the Member State where the subject

of the measure is located is informed and may intervene where the measure would not be

authorised in a similar domestic case.

The proposed rules on remote participation in criminal court hearings set clear and strict

conditions for issuing and executing an ERPO, as well as related procedural safeguards and

remedies. These rules ensure that remote participation in hearings is not carried out in a

manner that undermines the fairness of proceedings or the exercise of procedural rights. In

particular, the obligation to obtain the consent of the person concerned by the ERPO is

intended to ensure that the execution of the ERPO remains compatible with the protection of

the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, especially the right to be present in person at

the trial. A derogation from this consent requirement is permitted only in exceptional and

clearly identified situations which constitute permissible limitations in accordance with

Article 52 of the Charter. Moreover, the requirement for the suspect or accused person to be

represented by a mandated lawyer present in the issuing Member State constitutes an

additional safeguard for the effective exercise of defence rights.

The proposed rules on the remote participation in criminal proceedings are consistent with the

case-law of both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice.

Although the ECtHR has consistently recognised that the physical presence of the accused in

the courtroom is an important component of the right to a fair trial, it has also held that

participation in hearings by videoconference is not, in itself, incompatible with the right to a

fair and public hearing, provided that the person concerned is able to: (i) follow the

proceedings; (ii) see and hear the persons participating in the hearing; (iii) be seen and heard

without technical impediments; and (iv) communicate effectively and confidentially with their

lawyer41. The proposal reflects all these standards and, as mentioned above, establishes a

number of additional safeguards.

The proposed rules also take into account the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice,

notably case C-760/2242. In that case, the Court clarified that since Article 8(1) of Directive

(EU) 2016/343 does not expressly regulate the issue of remote participation in criminal trials,

40 Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal

aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European

arrest warrant proceedings, OJ L 297, 4.11.2016, p. 1. 41 ECtHR, judgement of 5 October 2006, Marcello Viola v. Italy,

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1005JUD004510604, paragraphs. 65-67, and ECtHR, judgment of 27 November

2007, Asciutto v. Italy, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1127JUD003579502, paragraphs. 62-73; ECtHR,

judgment of 16 February 2016, Yevdokimov e.a. v. Russia, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0216JUD002723605,

paragraph. 43; ECtHR, Sakhnovskiy v. Russia, App. no. 21272/03,

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1102JUD002127203, paragraph. 98. 42 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 July 2024, FP and Others (Procès par visioconférence), C-760/22,

EU:C:2024:574.

EN 13 EN

that provision cannot preclude an accused person, who expressly so requests, from being

allowed to participate in their trial hearings by videoconference. The Court of Justice also

confirmed that, where the Member States allow the defendant to exercise the right to attend

their trial remotely, those rules should not undermine the aim pursued by Directive (EU)

2016/343, which is to strengthen the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, the

presumption of innocence and the right of defence as enshrined in the Charter and the ECHR.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The initiative has budgetary implications, in particular as a result of its digitalisation

components. This includes legal, policy and coordination work within the Commission, as

well as technical work on developing, adapting, testing, maintaining and supporting the

decentralised IT system and its components.

The legislative financial and digital statement accompanying the proposal shows in detail the

budgetary implications and the human and administrative resources required.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The Commission will check that the provisions amended by this Directive are correctly and

effectively transposed into the national laws of all participating Member States. Throughout

the transposition phase, the Commission will organise transposition workshops with all

Member States.

The proposal provides for statistics to be collected so that the Commission can monitor the

application of the Directive and submit a corresponding report to the European Parliament

and to the Council.

• Explanatory documents (for directives)

Given that the proposal contains new legal obligations compared to the existing Directive, it

will be necessary for explanatory documents, including, for example, a correlation table

between national provisions and the Directive, to be sent with the notification of transposition

measures. This is to ensure that the transposition measures that Member States add to existing

legislation are clearly identifiable.

The national measures required to transpose this proposal are moreover likely to be

transposed by Member States in more than one single legal text. For this reason, it is

necessary for Member States to provide to the Commission with an explanatory document

containing the text of the provisions adopted in transposing this Directive. It should also show

how those provisions interact with the provisions already adopted to transpose the Directive

and with provisions covered by other relevant EU policies.

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

The following changes are being proposed:

Title I: General provisions

Article 1: outlines the subject matter.

Article 2: list of important definitions.

EN 14 EN

Title II: sets out the framework for the EIO and other measures for obtaining evidence in

criminal matters

Article 3: defines the EIO and describes the obligation to execute it.

Article 4: sets out the scope of the EIO.

Article 5: lists the types of proceedings for which an EIO can be issued.

Article 6: stipulates the required content of an EIO and its form.

Article 7: sets out conditions for issuing and transmitting an EIO.

Article 8: sets out the procedure for transmitting the EIO between issuing/executing

authorities.

Article 9: particular features if an EIO is related to an earlier EIO.

Article 10: sets out the obligation of the executing authority to recognise and execute an EIO.

Article 11: regulates the use of a different type of investigative measure and lists the measures

that always have to be available under the law of the executing State.

Article 12: lists the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution.

Article 13: sets time limits for recognition or execution.

Article 14: sets out rules for the transfer of obtained evidence.

Article 15: lists the grounds for postponing recognition or execution.

Article 16: stipulates obligations to inform the issuing authority.

Article 17: sets out the legal remedies that must be available.

Article 18: sets out rules on the criminal liability of officials.

Article 19: sets out rules on the civil liability of officials.

Article 20: sets out the duty of confidentiality.

Article 21: sets out the conditions for the subsequent use and onward transfer of information

or evidence.

Article 22: provides for the possibility of a temporary transfer to the issuing State of persons

held in custody for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure.

Article 23: provides for the possibility of a temporary transfer to the executing State of

persons held in custody for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure.

Article 24: provides for the possibility of hearing by videoconference or other distance

communication technology.

Article 25: provides for the possibility of hearing of experts or witnesses by telephone

conference.

Article 26: provides for the possibility of requesting information on bank and other financial

accounts.

Article 27: provides for the possibility of requesting information on banking and other

financial operations.

Article 28: regulates investigative measures implying the gathering of evidence in real time,

continuously and over a certain period of time.

Article 29: sets out specific rules on covert investigations.

Article 30: sets out specific rules on cross-border surveillance.

Article 31: sets out specific rules for requesting interception of telecommunications with

technical assistance from another Member State.

Article 32: sets out specific rules on provisional measures to prevent the loss of evidence.

Article 33: sets out a notification procedure of the Member State where the subject of the

interception is located and from which no technical assistance is needed.

Article 34: sets out a notification procedure of the Member State on the use, in its territory, of

a technical recording device without the need for its technical assistance.

Article 35: sets out the procedure for requesting consent to use previously exchanged

information as evidence.

EN 15 EN

Title III: establishes the ERPO, as a new mutual recognition instrument facilitating requests to

have a suspect, accused person or victims of crime participate remotely in criminal court

hearings from another Member State by means of videoconferencing or other distance

communication technology.

Article 36: defines the ERPO.

Article 37: sets out the conditions for issuing an ERPO.

Article 38: establishes the procedure and safeguards for obtaining the consent of the person

concerned.

Article 39: specifies the mandatory content of the ERPO standard form.

Article 40: regulates the transmission of the ERPO.

Article 41: establishes the obligation to recognise and execute the ERPO without further

formalities.

Article 42: provides detailed rules on the practical arrangements for the execution of ERPO

requests.

Article 43: sets out mandatory and optional grounds for non-recognition/execution of an

ERPO.

Article 44: sets time limits for decisions on recognition and execution of the ERPO.

Article 45: regulates situations where execution of the ERPO is impossible.

Article 46: provides for information obligations between the competent authorities.

Article 47: regulates provisional measures after conviction.

Article 48: encourages direct consultations between issuing and executing authorities.

Article 49: sets out the applicable procedural rights.

Article 50: establishes the right to effective remedies.

Title IV: sets out common provisions

Article 51: sets out rules on the means of communication.

Article 52: allows central authorities to be designated in the Member States.

Article 53: addresses issues of cooperation with Eurojust and the EJN.

Article 54: regulates issues of costs.

Article 55: provides for obligations for Member States to provide statistics.

Article 56: provides for rules on amending the standard forms.

Article 57: specifies rules on exercising of the delegation.

Title V: sets out transitional and final provisions

Article 58: sets out obligations for notifications of competent authorities.

Article 59: regulates the relationship with other EU and international instruments.

Article 60: sets out transitional provisions.

Article 61: sets out the transposition deadlines.

Article 62: sets out an obligation for the Commission to report on the application of the

Directive.

Article 63: sets out the repeal clause.

Article 64: sets out the clause on entry into force.

Article 65: indicates the addressees.

EN 0 EN

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

2026/0172 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters and the European

Remote Participation Order (recast)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular

Article 82 (1)(a) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (43)

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

 new

(1) Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council44 has been

substantially amended several times. Since further amendments are to be made, that

Directive should be recast in the interests of clarity.

 2014/41/EU recital 1

(2) The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area

of freedom, security and justice.

 new

(3) Serious and organised crime, and terrorism are increasingly transnational in nature and

pose a threat to security within the Union. Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to endeavour to ensure a high

level of security, including through coordination and cooperation between police and

judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual

recognition of judgments in criminal matters. Effective cross-border judicial

cooperation in criminal matters is therefore essential to facilitate the gathering and

43 […] 44 Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the

European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/41/oj).

EN 1 EN

transfer of evidence across borders, thereby supporting the effective investigation and

prosecution, and to enable the Union and the Member States to respond effectively to

those threats.

 2014/41/EU recital 2

(4) Pursuant to Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(TFEU), judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Union is to be based on the

principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions, which is, since the

Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, commonly referred to as a

cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the Union.

 2014/41/EU recital 3 (adapted)

Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA45 addressed the need for immediate

mutual recognition of orders to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving,

transfer or disposal of evidence. However, since that instrument is restricted to the

freezing phase, a freezing order needs to be accompanied by a separate request for the

transfer of the evidence to the State issuing the order (‘the issuing State’) in

accordance with the rules applicable to mutual assistance in criminal matters. This

results in a two-step procedure detrimental to its efficiency. Moreover, this regime

coexists with the traditional instruments of cooperation and is therefore seldom used in

practice by the competent authorities.

 2014/41/EU recital 4 (adapted)

Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA46 concerning the European evidence

warrant (EEW) was adopted to apply the principle of mutual recognition for the

purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal

matters. However, the EEW is only applicable to evidence which already exists and

covers therefore a limited spectrum of judicial cooperation in criminal matters with

respect to evidence. Because of its limited scope, competent authorities have been free

to use the new regime or to use mutual legal assistance procedures which, in any case,

remain applicable to evidence falling outside of the scope of the EEW.

 2014/41/EU recital 5 (adapted)

Since the adoption of Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2008/978/JHA, it has

become clear that the existing framework for the gathering of evidence is too

fragmented and complicated. A new approach is therefore necessary.

 2014/41/EU recital 6 (adapted)

In the Stockholm Programme adopted by the European Council of 10-

11 December 2009, the European Council considered that the setting up of a

comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension,

45 Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of

orders freezing property or evidence (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45). 46 Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant

for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters (OJ

L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 72).

EN 2 EN

based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued. The European

Council indicated that the existing instruments in this area constituted a fragmentary

regime and that a new approach was needed, based on the principle of mutual

recognition, but also taking into account the flexibility of the traditional system of

mutual legal assistance. The European Council therefore called for a comprehensive

system to replace all the existing instruments in this area, including Framework

Decision 2008/978/JHA, covering as far as possible all types of evidence, containing

time-limits for enforcement and limiting as far as possible the grounds for refusal.

 new

(5) Directive 2014/41/EU established the European Investigation Order (‘EIO’) as an

instrument for cross-border gathering of evidence in criminal matters. That Directive

was a response to the well-identified practical need for a comprehensive framework,

based on mutual recognition, for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border

dimension. It replaced the previous fragmented evidence-gathering system while

taking into account the flexibility of the traditional system of mutual legal assistance.

(6) Directive 2014/41/EU has applied since 22 May 2017 and has proven effective in

practice. However, experience gained through its application, including the findings of

the 10th round of mutual evaluations47, has revealed areas where the legal framework

should be strengthened and supplemented to improve legal clarity and effectiveness of

cross-border evidence gathering. This calls for targeted legislative improvements to

the EIO, as well as for facilitating the remote participation of suspects and accused

persons and victims of crime located in another Member State in criminal court

hearings by videoconference. The common rules on cross-border judicial cooperation

in the gathering of evidence in criminal matters under Directive 2014/41/EU should

therefore be further improved and developed to ensure the efficient functioning of that

instrument and to enhance judicial cooperation in evidence gathering.

(7) The legal landscape across Member States regarding the remote participation of

suspects, accused persons and victims of crime in court hearings by videoconference

from another Member State is currently not regulated at Union level. The Member

States are therefore faced with fragmentation and inconsistent practices in the cross-

border remote participation in criminal court hearings. Individuals are faced with

barriers to accessing justice in the exercise of their freedom of movement, as well as

legal uncertainty, in the absence of Union level rules.

(8) To address those issues, this proposal establishes a new legal framework in the form of

the European Remote Participation Order (ERPO) enabling cooperation between

Member States to facilitate the effective participation via videoconference or other

distance communication technology of a suspect, accused person or victim of crime,

where they have the status of party to the proceedings, in one or more criminal court

hearings from another Member State. An ERPO can therefore concern one or more

hearings at pre-trial or trial stage. In relation to victims of crime Directive

2012/29/EU48 invites the Member States to facilitate requests for victims’ remote

47 Endorsed by the Coordinating Committee in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal

matters (CATS) on 21 November 2024. 48 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing

minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council

Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/29/oj).

EN 3 EN

participation in criminal proceedings from another Member State, without however

establishing specific rules for this purpose.

(9) For the purposes of an ERPO, remote participation should be understood as covering

the full participation in all types of criminal court hearings at both the pre-trial and

trial stage from another Member State, as appropriate, depending on whether the

person concerned is a suspect, accused person or victim of crime. Full

participation entails the full exercise of procedural rights to which the person

concerned is entitled as if the person were physically present at the hearing, including

any form of giving or taking of evidence. Full participation thus implies not only

attendance at a hearing but also, as appropriate, any form of taking of evidence from

the person concerned by means of videoconferencing or other distance communication

technology. Such participation should ensure that the person concerned is able to

follow the proceedings and be heard under conditions which respect the rights of the

defence, as applicable, and the fairness of the proceedings.

(10) Whenever the purpose of the hearing is confined to the gathering of evidence to

establish the relevant facts with regard to the existence of a criminal offence, the

circumstances in which the offence was committed or the identity of the perpetrator,

and to the extent that it does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose, the

competent authority should rely on the issuance of an EIO, be it for the purpose of

hearing the person concerned in the territory of the executing State, for hearings by

videoconference or other distance communication technology from the executing State

or for the temporary transfer to the issuing State of a person held in custody.

(11) For the purpose of this Directive, videoconferencing or other distance communication

technology should be understood as referring to an audio-visual transmission

technology that allows two-way and simultaneous communication of image and

sound, thereby enabling visual, audio and oral interaction, within the meaning

established under Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the European Parliament and of the

Council49.

(12) The use of videoconferencing and other distance communication technology in

criminal proceedings requires reliable and secure technical infrastructure capable of

ensuring the effective participation of the person concerned. Such technology should

allow for the person concerned to effectively exercise their procedural rights,

including the possibility for that person to communicate confidentially with their

lawyer, who should be present in the courtroom in the issuing State. Member States

should therefore ensure that the competent authorities have access to technical means

that are sufficiently secure, accessible and reliable for the purposes of remote

participation in criminal proceedings.

 2014/41/EU recital 7 (adapted)

(13) This new approach is based on a single instrument called the European Investigation

Order (EIO). An EIO, it is to be issued for the purpose of having one or several

specific investigative measure(s) carried out in the State executing the EIO (‘the

49 Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on the

digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal

matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L, 2023/2844, 27.12.2023,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2844/oj).

EN 4 EN

executing State’) with a view to gathering evidence. This  That  includes the

obtaining of evidence that is already in the possession of the executing authority.

 2014/41/EU recital 8 (adapted)

(14) The EIO should have a horizontal scope and therefore should apply to all investigative

measures aimed at gathering evidence. However, the setting up of a joint investigation

team and the gathering of evidence within such a team require specific rules which are

better dealt with separately. Without prejudice to the application of this Directive,

existing instruments should therefore continue to apply to this  that  type of

investigative measure.

 new

(15) In certain situations, the effective execution of an investigative measure with a view to

gathering evidence requires that a person concerned by the measure in the executing

State be informed of, and enabled to attend or participate in, an investigative act for

the purpose of obtaining evidence. The service of procedural documents for that

purpose should therefore be possible under this Directive, provided that such service is

strictly necessary for the execution of an investigative measure to obtain evidence.

 2014/41/EU recital 9

This Directive should not apply to cross-border surveillance as referred to in the Convention

implementing the Schengen Agreement50

 2014/41/EU recital 10

(16) The EIO should focus on the investigative measure to be carried out. The issuing

authority is best placed to decide, on the basis of its knowledge of the details of the

investigation concerned, which investigative measure is to be used. However, the

executing authority should, wherever possible, use another type of investigative

measure if the indicated measure does not exist under its national law or would not be

available in a similar domestic case. Availability should refer to occasions where the

indicated investigative measure exists under the law of the executing State but is only

lawfully available in certain situations, for example where the investigative measure

can only be carried out for offences of a certain degree of seriousness, against persons

for whom there is already a certain level of suspicion or with the consent of the person

concerned. The executing authority may also have recourse to another type of

investigative measure where it would achieve the same result as the investigative

measure indicated in the EIO by means implying less interference with the

fundamental rights of the person concerned.

50 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the

States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on

the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19).

EN 5 EN

 2014/41/EU recital 11 (adapted)

(17) The EIO should be chosen where the execution of an investigative measure seems

proportionate, adequate and applicable to the case in hand. The issuing authority

should therefore ascertain whether the evidence sought is necessary and proportionate

for the purpose of the proceedings, whether the investigative measure chosen is

necessary and proportionate for the gathering of the evidence concerned, and whether,

by means of issuing the EIO, another Member State should be involved in the

gathering of that evidence. The same assessment should be carried out in the

validation procedure, where the validation of an EIO is required under this Directive.

The execution of an EIO should not be refused on grounds other than those stated in

this Directive. However the executing authority should be entitled to opt for a less

intrusive investigative measure than the one indicated in an EIO if it makes it possible

to achieve similar results.

 2014/41/EU récital 12 (adapted)

 new

(18) When issuing an EIO  or an ERPO  the issuing authority should pay particular

attention to ensuring full respect for the rights as enshrined in Articles  47 and  48

of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter).  The

right to a fair trial is one of the basic principles in a democratic society.  The

presumption of innocence  , the right to be present at trial  and the  other 

rights of defence in criminal proceedings are a cornerstone of the fundamental rights

recognised in the Charter within the area of criminal justice. Any limitation of such

rights by an investigative measure ordered in accordance with this Directive should

fully conform to the requirements established in Article 52 of the Charter with regard

to the necessity, proportionality and objectives that it should pursue, in particular the

protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 new

(19) This Directive should be implemented ensuring that the rights provided under

Directives 2010/64/EU51, 2012/13/EU52, 2013/48/EU53, (EU) 2016/34354, (EU)

51 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to

interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/64/oj). 52 Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to

information in criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/13/oj). 53 Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of

access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right

to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and

with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/48/oj). 54 Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the

strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the

trial in criminal proceedings (OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/343/oj).

EN 6 EN

2016/80055 and (EU) 2016/191956 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

which concern procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal

proceedings, as well as the rights of victims of crime provided under Directive

2012/29/EU, are fully respected and complied with.

(20) The implementation of Title III of this Directive, in particular, should not affect the

right to be physically present at trial as enshrined in Article 8(1) of Directive (EU)

2016/343, nor other Union legal acts in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal

matters or criminal procedural law, and in particular provisions on the use of

videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology in criminal matters.

(21) When implementing this Directive, due account should be taken of the specific needs

of vulnerable persons, meaning persons in situations of vulnerability. The use of

videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, in particular, may

present additional challenges for such persons and may require specific procedural

safeguards to be provided and arrangements to be made, including the provision of

appropriate support measures. A broad and flexible approach should be adopted in

identifying situations of vulnerability, in order to ensure that all persons who require

specific attention can effectively exercise their rights. Specific attention should be paid

to vulnerable persons when assessing the appropriateness and proportionality of

issuing an ERPO and when considering any derogation from the requirement of

consent. Where the person concerned is a child, their best interests should be a primary

consideration. In order to ensure effective participation, competent authorities should

cooperate closely to identify and implement appropriate measures tailored to the

individual needs of the person concerned.

 2014/41/EU recital 13

With a view to ensuring the transmission of the EIO to the competent authority of the

executing State, the issuing authority may make use of any possible or relevant means of

transmission, for example the secure telecommunications system of the European Judicial

Network, Eurojust, or other channels used by judicial or law enforcement authorities.

 2014/41/EU recital 15 (adapted)

This Directive should be implemented taking into account Directives 2010/64/EU57,

2012/13/EU58, and 2013/48/EU59 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which

concern procedural rights in criminal proceedings.

55 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural

safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (OJ L 132,

21.5.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/800/oj). 56 Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal

aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European

arrest warrant proceedings (OJ L 297, 4.11.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/1919/oj). 57 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to

interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1). 58 Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to

information in criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1). 59 Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of

access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right

to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and

with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1).

EN 7 EN

 2014/41/EU recital 11 (adapted)

(22) The execution of an EIO should not be refused on grounds other than those stated in

this Directive. However, the executing authority should be entitled to opt for a less

intrusive investigative measure than the one indicated in an EIO if it makes it possible

to achieve similar results.

 2014/41/EU recital 16

(23) Non-coercive measures could be, for example, such measures that do not infringe the

right to privacy or the right to property, depending on national law.

 2014/41/EU recital 17 (adapted)

 new

(24) The principle of ne bis in idem is a fundamental principle of law in the Union, as

recognised by the Charter and developed by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the

European Union. Therefore the executing authority should be entitled to refuse the

execution of an EIO if  where  its execution would be contrary to that principle.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings underlying an EIO, its execution

should not be subject to refusal where it is aimed to establish whether a possible

conflict with the ne bis in idem principle exists, or where the issuing authority has

provided assurances that  , in the case of an EIO,  the evidence transferred as a

result of the execution of the EIO would not be used to prosecute or impose a sanction

on a person whose case has been finally disposed of in another Member State for the

same facts.  In the case of an ERPO, as remote participation forms part of the

conduct of criminal proceedings and entails progressing towards a determination of

guilt in a given case, where it is established that the person concerned has already been

finally judged in respect of the same acts, or that a final decision has been adopted

which precludes further proceedings on the merits, the executing authority should

refuse the recognition and execution of that ERPO. 

 2014/41/EU recital 18 (adapted)

(25) As in other mutual recognition instruments, this Directive does not have the effect of

modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and fundamental legal

principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the

Charter. In order to make this clear, a specific provision is inserted in the text.

 2014/41/EU recital 19 (adapted)

 new

(26) The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice within the Union is based on

mutual confidence and a presumption of compliance by other Member States with

Union law and, in particular, with fundamental rights. However, that presumption is

rebuttable. Consequently, if  where  there are substantial grounds for believing

that the execution of an investigative measure indicated in the EIO  or of an

ERPO  would result in a breach of a fundamental right of the person concerned and

that the executing State would disregard its obligations concerning the protection of

EN 8 EN

fundamental rights recognised in the Charter, the execution of the EIO  or the

ERPO  should be refused.

 2014/41/EU recital 20 (adapted)

 new

(27) It should be possible to refuse an EIO  or an ERPO also  where its recognition or

execution in the executing State would involve a breach of an immunity or privilege in

that State. There is no common definition of what constitutes an immunity or privilege

in Union law,; the precise definition of these  those  terms is therefore left to

national law, which may include protections which apply to medical and legal

professions, but should not be interpreted in a way to counter the obligation to abolish

certain grounds for refusal as set out in the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual

Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union60.

This  That  may also include, even though they are not necessarily considered as

privilege or immunity, rules relating to freedom of the press and freedom of

expression in other media.

 2014/41/EU recital 21

 new

(28) Time limits are necessary to ensure quick, effective and consistent cooperation

between the Member States in criminal matters. The decision on the recognition or

execution, as well as the actual execution of the investigative measure, should be

carried out with the same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case. Time

limits should be provided to ensure a decision or execution within reasonable time or

to meet procedural constraints in the issuing State.  Particular attention should be

given to investigative measures implying the gathering of evidence in real time,

continuously and over a certain period of time such as the monitoring of banking or

other financial operations that are being carried out through one or more specified

accounts and the controlled deliveries on the territory of the executing State,

interception of telecommunications and cross-border surveillance, which should

receive immediate attention and, where strictly necessary to preserve their

effectiveness, the executing authority may decide to permit its provisional execution

pending a decision on recognition or execution, subject to cessation where recognition

is refused. 

 2014/41/EU recital 22

(29) Legal remedies available against an EIO should be at least equal to those available in a

domestic case against the investigative measure concerned. In accordance with their

national law Member States should ensure the applicability of such legal remedies,

including by informing in due time any interested party about the possibilities and

modalities for seeking those legal remedies. In cases where objections against the EIO

are submitted by an interested party in the executing State in respect of the substantive

reasons for issuing the EIO, it is advisable that information about such challenge be

60 Protocol established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union to

the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European

Union (OJ C 326, 21.11.2001, p. 2).

EN 9 EN

transmitted to the issuing authority and that the interested party be informed

accordingly.

 new

(30) Where information or evidence is obtained through the execution of a EIO or through

a notification procedure which does not require the assistance of the notified Member

State, and where the law of the executing State or notified Member State provides for

conditions limiting the use of such information or evidence for purposes other than

those for which it was originally gathered, those conditions should be duly indicated at

the time of transfer of evidence or within the time limit indicated with respect to the

notification procedures. Prior consent should be required for any onward transfer to

another Member State, a third country or an international organisation.

(31) Where a competent authority seeks consent, where required under its national law or

the conditions attached to the original transmission of the information, to use as

evidence in criminal proceedings information previously exchanged between law

enforcement authorities or through spontaneous exchange of information, such consent

should be requested for each intended use of that information, including any different

use thereof.

 2014/41/EU recital 23 (adapted)

 new

(32) The expenses incurred in the territory of the executing State for the execution of an

EIO  or an ERPO  should be borne exclusively by that State. This arrangement

complies with the general principle of mutual recognition. However, the execution of

an EIO  or an ERPO  may incur exceptionally high costs on the executing State.

Such exceptionally high costs may, for example,  in the case of an EIO,  be

complex experts' opinions or extensive police operations or surveillance activities over

a long period of time  or, in the case of an ERPO, result from the organisation of a

large number of remote hearings  . This  That  should not impede the

execution of the EIO  or the ERPO  and the issuing  authority  and

 the  executing authorities  authority  should seek to establish which costs

are to be considered as exceptionally high. The issue of costs might become subject to

consultations between the issuing State and the executing State and they are

recommended to resolve this  that  issue during the consultations stage. As a last

resort, the issuing authority may decide to withdraw the EIO  or the ERPO  or to

maintain it, and the part of the costs which are estimated exceptionally high by the

executing State and absolutely necessary in the course of the proceedings, should be

covered by the issuing State.  In the case of an EIO,  tThe given mechanism

should not constitute an additional ground for refusal, and in any event should not be

abused in a way to delay or impede the execution of the EIO.

 2014/41/EU recital 24 (adapted)

 new

(33) The EIO establishes a single regime for obtaining evidence. Additional rules are

however necessary for certain types of investigative measures which should be

indicated in the EIO, such as the temporary transfer of persons held in custody,

hearing by video or telephone conference, obtaining of information related to bank

EN 10 EN

accounts or banking transactions, controlled deliveries, or covert investigations,

 surveillance or use of technical recording devices  . Investigative measures

implying a gathering of evidence in real time, continuously and over a certain period

of time  ,as well as cross-border surveillance,  should be covered by the EIO, but,

where necessary, practical arrangements should be agreed between the issuing State

and the executing State in order to accommodate the differences existing in the

national laws of those States.

 2014/41/EU recital 25 (adapted)

 new

(34) This  Title II of this  Directive sets out rules on carrying out, at all stages of

criminal proceedings, including the trial phase, of an investigative measure, if

 where  needed with the participation of the person concerned with a view to

collecting evidence. For example an EIO may be issued for the temporary transfer of

that person to the issuing State or for the carrying out of a hearing by

videoconference.,  in so far as that measure has an evidential objective and its

execution does not go beyond what is necessary for the purpose of gathering

evidence.  However, where that person is to be transferred to another Member State

for the purposes of prosecution, including bringing that person before a court for the

purpose of the standing trial, a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) should be issued in

accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA61.

 2014/41/EU recital 26 (adapted)

 new

(35) With a view to the proportionate use of an EAW, the issuing authority should consider

whether an EIO  or an ERPO  would be an effective and proportionate means of

pursuing criminal proceedings. The issuing authority should consider, in particular,

whether issuing an EIO for the hearing of a suspected or accused person by

videoconference  or an ERPO allowing for the suspect or accused person’s remote

participation in criminal court hearings  could serve as an effective alternative.

 2014/41/EU recital 27 (adapted)

(36) An EIO may be issued in order to obtain evidence concerning the accounts, of

whatever nature, held in any bank or any non-banking financial institution by a person

subject to criminal proceedings. This  That  possibility is to be understood

broadly as comprising not only suspected or accused persons but also any other person

in respect of whom such information is found necessary by the competent authorities

in the course of criminal proceedings.

 2014/41/EU recital 28 (adapted)

(37) Where in this Directive a reference is made to financial institutions, this  that 

term should be understood according to  in accordance with  the relevant

61 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the

surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj).

EN 11 EN

definition of Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2015/849Directive 2005/60/EC of the

European Parliament and the Council6263.

 2014/41/EU recital 29

(38) When an EIO is issued to obtain ‘details’ of a specified account, ‘details’ should be

understood to include at least the name and address of the account holder, details of

any powers of attorney held over the account, and any other details or documents

provided by the account holder when the account was opened and that are still held by

the bank.

 new

(39) The EIO covers cross-border surveillance as an investigative measure which is

undertaken with the primary purpose of gathering evidence for criminal proceedings

and involving the creation of audio, visual, or other recordings by technical means

operated by law enforcement officers. The Convention implementing the Schengen

Agreement (4) remains applicable to cross-border surveillance carried out within the

framework of operational police cooperation. The applicable legal instrument should

be determined on the basis of the primary purpose of the measure. In particular, where

surveillance is ordered or authorised within the framework of criminal proceedings for

the purpose of obtaining evidence, it should be carried out under this Directive. In

cases of doubt as to which instrument applies, the competent authorities of the issuing

State and of the executing State should consult each other without delay.

(40) In order to ensure the effectiveness of criminal investigations, competent authorities

should be able, under strictly regulated conditions, to continue surveillance measures

across the territory of another Member State where such continuity is necessary to

avoid compromising the gathering of evidence. Such cross-border surveillance should

not entail the exercise by officers of the issuing State of coercive or enforcement

powers within the territory of the executing State. Cross-border surveillance should

remain subject to the control of the executing State, which should retain the power to

impose conditions, require handover of the operation to its own authorities, or refuse

continuation where the measure would not be authorised in a similar domestic case.

The derogation permitting continuation of surveillance in situations of duly justified

urgency should be interpreted strictly and applied only where prior transmission of an

EIO is impossible without jeopardising the measure. Given the urgent nature, it is for

each Member State to designate the authority that is competent to receive and process

urgent notifications relating to cross-border surveillance. Such authority may be a

judicial authority, a law enforcement authority or a central authority, in accordance

with national law. Member States should ensure that the authorities so designated are

available and able to process such notifications 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

62 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the

prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist

financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and

repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission

Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, , p. 73, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/849/oj). 63 Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the

prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist

financing (OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15).

EN 12 EN

 2014/41/EU recital 30

 new

(41)  In order to ensure the effective and technologically neutral application of the rules

governing the interception of telecommunications under this Directive, the notion of

“telecommunications” should be interpreted broadly. It should encompass any

communication transmitted by means of electronic communications networks or

electronic communications services, as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the

European Parliament and of the Council64. Reference to the definitions contained in

Directive (EU) 2018/1972 ensures that this Directive remains aligned with

developments in electronic communications technologies and prevents disparities in

interpretation between Member States arising from technological evolution. 

Possibilities to cooperate under this Directive on the interception of

telecommunications should not be limited to the content of the telecommunications,

but could also cover collection of traffic and location data associated with such

telecommunications, allowing competent authorities to issue an EIO for the purpose of

obtaining less intrusive data on telecommunications. An EIO issued to obtain

historical traffic and location data related to telecommunications should be dealt with

under the general regime related to the execution of the EIO and may be considered,

depending on the national law of the executing State, as a coercive investigative

measure.

 2014/41/EU recital 31

(42) Where several Member States are in a position to provide the necessary technical

assistance, an EIO should be sent only to one of them and priority should be given to

the Member State where the person concerned is located. Member States where the

subject of the interception is located and from which no technical assistance is needed

to carry out the interception should be notified thereof in accordance with this

Directive. However, where the technical assistance may not be received from merely

one Member State, an EIO may be transmitted to more than one executing State.

 2014/41/EU recital 32

(43) In an EIO containing the request for interception of telecommunications the issuing

authority should provide the executing authority with sufficient information, such as

details of the criminal conduct under investigation, in order to allow the executing

authority to assess whether that investigative measure, would be authorised in a

similar domestic case.

 2014/41/EU recital 33 (adapted)

(44) Member States should have regard to the importance of ensuring that technical

assistance can be provided by a service provider operating publicly available

telecommunications networks and  providing  services in the territory of the

64 Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018

establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1972/oj).

EN 13 EN

Member State concerned, in order to facilitate cooperation under this instrument

 Directive  in relation to the lawful interception of telecommunications.

 2014/41/EU recital 34

(45) The EIO, by virtue of its scope, deals with provisional measures only with a view to

gathering evidence. In this respect, it should be underlined that any item, including

financial assets, may be subject to various provisional measures in the course of

criminal proceedings, not only with a view to gathering evidence but also with a view

to confiscation. The distinction between the two objectives of provisional measures is

not always obvious and the objective of the provisional measure may change in the

course of the proceedings. For this reason, it is crucial to maintain a smooth

relationship between the various instruments applicable in this field. Furthermore, for

the same reason, the assessment of whether the item is to be used as evidence and

therefore be the object of an EIO should be left to the issuing authority.

 new

(46) Where a technical recording device lawfully authorised in one Member State enters

the territory of another Member State without requiring its technical assistance, a

notification mechanism should enable the competent authorities of that Member State

to assess, within a limited period, whether the continued use of the device would be

permissible in a comparable domestic case and, where appropriate, to object to its

continuation or impose conditions on the use of material obtained. The transmission of

data collected by such devices through electronic communications networks or

services for the purpose of storing such data should not, in itself, qualify the measure

as the interception of telecommunications. Such qualification should apply only where

the measure is specifically directed at acquiring communications in transmission

through such networks or services. The absence of an objection within the prescribed

period should permit the continued operation of the measure for the notified duration.

This mechanism applies within the framework of this Directive and is without

prejudice to the application of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement

to cross-border surveillance carried out for operational police cooperation purposes.

The choice of applicable instrument depends on the primary purpose of the measure

and not on the technical means used.

(47) As concerns the ERPO, the issuing authority may only issue an ERPO where the

person concerned is or will, at the time of the envisaged hearing(s), be detained,

resident or temporarily staying in the executing State for justified reasons impeding or

otherwise hindering their physical presence in the issuing State, and where the issuing

authority considers it appropriate and proportionate in light of the specific

circumstances of the case. Unless an ERPO is issued following a request of the person

concerned, that person has to give their consent to participate remotely. Consent must

be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguously indicate that the person agrees

to their remote participation in the hearing(s) concerned. For that purpose, it should be

ensured that the person concerned is provided with information about the rights

available to them and has access to a lawyer, before their consent is sought.

(48) It is for the issuing authority to assess, on the basis of information before it, whether

there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect, accused person or victim

resides in the executing State and whether it would be appropriate and proportionate

EN 14 EN

for that person to remotely participate in the hearing(s) concerned on that basis. Where

only limited information is available, such an assessment should be the subject of

consultations between the issuing authority and executing authority with a view to

confirming the residence of the suspect, accused person or victim in the requested

State and in order to serve the summons to the hearing(s) concerned. For the purposes

of the assessment of residence, various objective circumstances that could indicate that

the person concerned has established the habitual centre of their interests in a

particular Member State or has the intention to do so at the time of the hearing(s)

could be of relevance. Reasonable grounds to believe that a person resides in the

executing State could exist, in particular, where a person is registered as a resident in

the executing State, by holding an identity card or a residence permit, or by

registration in an official residence register. Where the person in question is not

registered in the executing State, residence could be indicated by the fact that that

person manifested the intention to settle in that Member State or has acquired,

following a stable period of presence in that Member State, certain connections with it

which are of a similar degree as those resulting from establishing a formal residence in

that Member State. In order to determine whether, in a specific situation, there are

sufficient connections between the person concerned and the executing State giving

rise to reasonable grounds to believe that the person concerned resides in that Member

State, it is necessary to take into account various objective factors characterising the

situation of that person, which include, in particular, the length, nature and conditions

of that person’s presence in the executing State or the family or economic connections

which that person has with the requested State. A registered vehicle, a bank account,

the fact that the person’s stay in the executing State was uninterrupted or other

objective factors could be of relevance for determining that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that the person concerned resides in the executing State. A short

visit, a holiday stay, including in a holiday home, or a similar stay in the executing

State without any further substantial link is not enough to establish residence in that

Member State.

(49) Where the suspect, accused person or victim of crime is found not to be resident but

only temporarily staying in the executing State, the issuing authority should assess

whether there are justified reasons for them to not be physically present at the hearings

concerned. Where that information cannot be inferred from the material available to

the court, it will be for the person concerned or their lawyer to present to the issuing

authority any justified reasons for not attending the hearings in person. That includes

situations where a person does not have a substantial link to the executing State which

would qualify as residence but is temporarily staying in the executing State.

(50) In duly justified and exceptional situations, it may be necessary to provide for remote

participation without the prior consent of the person concerned, in particular where

clear risks relating to public security or public health arise which are shown to be

genuine and present or foreseeable, and where postponing the hearing(s), or

suspending the proceedings due to the absence for instance of the suspect or accused

person would be contrary to the efficient and proper administration of justice. The use

of such a derogation should remain strictly limited to situations of necessity and be

subject to appropriate safeguards to ensure that it does not adversely affect the fairness

of the proceedings or the rights of the defence.

(51) When assessing whether to issue an ERPO, the issuing authority should verify that all

the conditions laid down in this Directive are fulfilled. In addition, it may consider

whether recourse to a EAW under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA would not be

EN 15 EN

possible, appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances of the case. That may in

particular be the case where the offence concerned does not meet the penalty threshold

set out in Article 2(1) of that Framework Decision or where the use of a EAW would

not be necessary or proportionate because an ERPO can be considered sufficient to

ensure the participation of the person concerned in the hearing(s) to which it relates.

The issuing authority may also take into account situations where the presence of the

suspect or accused person at the hearing is mandatory but surrender has been

postponed indefinitely for serious humanitarian reasons pursuant to Article 23(4) of

Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, or where the person concerned is subject to

deprivation of liberty in the executing State, or to an alternative measure requiring

their confinement to the territory of that State, and temporary surrender pursuant to

Article 24(2) of that Framework Decision is not possible or appropriate.

(52) When determining whether it is appropriate to issue an ERPO, the issuing authority

should also be able to take into account other circumstances relevant to the efficient

and proper administration of justice. In particular, it may consider whether the

criminal proceedings would otherwise need to be conducted in the absence of the

suspect or accused person, or whether a transfer of criminal proceedings under

Regulation (EU) 2024/3011 of the European Parliament and of the Council65 would

not be possible or would not serve the efficient and proper administration of justice.

The issuing authority may also take into account the interests of the victim, including

their specific protection needs in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2012/29/EU.

In addition, the issuing authority may consider the seriousness or nature of the offence

or the complexity of the proceedings, to assess whether an ERPO would be

appropriate in a certain case.

(53) Grounds for refusing the execution of cross-border measures should remain limited

and not undermine the effectiveness of judicial cooperation. The issuing authority and

the executing authority should closely cooperate and consult one another before taking

a decision on the non-recognition or non-execution of an EIO or ERPO.

(54) In the context of an ERPO, the executing authority should be able to refuse execution

in exceptional situations, on the basis of an individual assessment, where the execution

of an ERPO would impose a disproportionate burden on its judicial system, capable of

unduly delaying, disrupting or rendering impracticable the proper conduct of its own

administration of justice, and where such consequences cannot be mitigated by means

of cooperation and specific practical agreements with the issuing authority.

(55) The remote hearings should be governed by the law of the issuing State. The issuing

authority and the executing authority should agree on the practical arrangements for

the execution of the ERPO. Clear allocation of responsibilities between those

authorities is necessary in order to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing, legal

certainty and the effective exercise of procedural rights by the person concerned. The

executing authority should facilitate the practical organisation of the hearing within its

territory and ensure that the person concerned can exercise their rights in the context

of the execution of the ERPO. The issuing authority should remain responsible for the

conduct of the proceedings and for ensuring the effective participation and exercise of

relevant rights by the person concerned in accordance with the law of the issuing

State. The issuing authority may require the executing authority to comply with certain

65 Regulation (EU) 2024/3011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on

the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters (OJ L, 2024/3011, 27/11/2024, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3011/oj).

EN 16 EN

formalities and procedures when executing the ERPO, such as specific requirements to

summon the person to appear for the remote hearing(s) or the provision of information

to the person concerned specifically required under the law of the issuing State.

(56) In order to ensure legal certainty and avoid the unnecessary disruption of criminal

proceedings, the consequences of a failure by the person concerned to appear for the

remote participation in a hearing after having been duly summoned by the authorities

of the executing State should be governed by the law of the issuing State, as in a

domestic case. Depending on the circumstances of the case, such consequences may

include the rescheduling of the hearing, the withdrawal of the ERPO, or the

continuation of the proceedings in accordance with the applicable procedural rules of

the issuing State. The application of such rules should remain subject to compliance

with Union law and fundamental rights, in particular the right to be present at trial of

suspects and accused persons as enshrined under Directive (EU) 2016/343.

(57) The executing authority should draw up minutes and record relevant elements relating

to the execution of the ERPO to ensure publicity, transparency, accountability and,

where relevant, the exercise of legal remedies. Such records, once forwarded to the

issuing authority, shall be included in the national file.

(58) In order to safeguard the fairness of criminal proceedings and the effective exercise of

the rights of the suspect or accused person concerned by the ERPO, the issuing

authority should ensure that that person is represented by a mandated lawyer in the

issuing State who is physically present at the hearing(s). The physical presence of the

lawyer in the courtroom is essential to ensure that the suspect or accused person

concerned can effectively exercise the procedural rights available under the law of the

issuing State and under Union law. Victims of crime should be represented in

accordance with the relevant provisions under national and Union law. Appropriate

technical and practical arrangements should be available to enable secure, confidential

and effective communication between the lawyer present in the issuing State and the

person concerned participating remotely in the hearing(s).

(59) To avoid the risks of secondary and repeated victimisation of victims of crime, any

hearings relating to the ERPO should be conducted in a manner that respects victims’

individual needs. Victims have the right to receive the emotional support in

accordance with Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.

To that end, the executing authority should ensure that access to that support in

ensured throughout the execution of an ERPO. The authorities or services responsible

for providing such support should be determined by the Member States.

(60) Remote participation in a criminal court hearing pursuant to an ERPO should not in

any way reduce the level of protection afforded to persons involved in criminal

proceedings and should take due account of the need to preserve the fairness of

proceedings, the equality of arms and the effective exercise of the rights of the

defence. Such persons should be able to exercise their procedural rights applicable in

criminal proceedings under Union law and under the national law of the issuing State

and the executing State in accordance with the arrangements envisaged under Title III

of this Directive effectively, irrespective of whether participation takes place

physically or remotely.

(61) The effective exercise of procedural rights in the context of remote participation

should not be limited to the holding and duration of the hearing(s) themselves. Persons

participating remotely should be able to exercise all the rights in the proceedings to

which the ERPO relates, such as the submission of requests in preparation of the

EN 17 EN

hearing(s), access to the case-file and any other procedural rights available to them

under Union law and the law of the issuing State, under conditions equivalent, as far

as possible, to those applicable in the case of physical participation.

(62) Persons who have consented to or requested remote participation, should retain the

possibility to revert to physical participation, if they so wish, to fully ensure their right

to be physically present at trial. In those cases, the ERPO should be withdrawn.

(63) Persons concerned by an ERPO should have access to effective remedies in

accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European

Union, both in the issuing State and in the executing State, where the issuing,

recognition or execution of that ERPO adversely affects their rights. Moreover, when

an ERPO is issued without the consent of the person concerned, effective judicial

review of the decision to issue the ERPO should be available to verify compliance

with the conditions and safeguards laid down in Title III of this Directive.

(64) The fairness of the proceedings to which the ERPO relates is closely tied to the

reliability and efficacy of the technical and practical conditions under which they are

conducted. Interruptions of communication with the courtroom and other technical

failures, including in relation to the confidentiality or effectiveness of communication

between the lawyer and the person concerned, may adversely affect the effective

exercise of procedural rights and the fairness of the proceedings. It should therefore be

possible for the person concerned to raise such issues before the issuing authority or

the competent authorities of the executing State, which should on that basis inform the

issuing authority. It is for the issuing authority to order appropriate remedial measures,

where necessary, including the suspension, postponement or repetition of the hearing

concerned.

(65) Where a suspect or accused person has participated remotely in their trial pursuant to

an ERPO and those proceedings resulted in a on the conviction of that person,

imposing on them a custodial sentence, detention order or confiscation measure, or

any financial penalty or other supervision measure, it is important to ensure continuity

and effective cooperation via the instruments of judicial cooperation available, as

relevant. This includes, in particular, Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA for

surrender with the purpose of execution of the sentence, Council Framework Decision

2008/909/JHA66 for the purpose of recognition of the final decision against the person

in the executing State and taking over of the sentence as well as Regulation (EU)

2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council67 with a view to the

recognition of confiscation orders. In such situations, the issuing State and the

executing State should be in close contact to ensure that the necessary provisional

measures pending receipt and execution of judicial cooperation requests following the

imposition of a sentence are taken in the specific case. In cases where the issuing State

intends to issue an EAW, the executing State should be able, in accordance with its

national law, to adopt appropriate provisional measures pending the receipt and

execution of the EAW. Such measures should remain proportionate and strictly limited

66 Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle

of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures

involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ L 327,

5.12.2008, p. 27, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2008/909/oj). 67 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on

the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1805/oj).

EN 18 EN

to what is necessary to ensure that the person concerned remains in its territory for the

effective enforcement of the final decision.

(66) The proper application of this Directive presupposes communication between the

competent authorities. They should be encouraged to consult each other whenever

appropriate to facilitate the smooth and efficient application of this Directive, either

directly or, where appropriate, via European Union Agency for Criminal Justice

Cooperation (Eurojust) established by Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European

Parliament and of the Council68 or the European Judicial Network governed by

Council Decision 2008/976/JHA69. Competent authorities are also encouraged, where

appropriate, to request Eurojust to exercise a coordinating role within its remit in order

to support and coordinate cross-border investigative measures with a view to gathering

evidence, particularly controlled deliveries, cross-border surveillance, covert

investigations or interception of telecommunications, given the specific coordination

challenges such measures entail and the expertise Eurojust can bring in this regard.

Competent authorities may also request Eurojust to facilitate the transmission of EIO,

ERPO or notifications and requests for consent to use as evidence information

previously exchanged.

(67) In order to ensure swift, direct, interoperable, reliable and secure exchange of data, to

build on investments made to date and to ensure consistency with other Union acts,

communication under this Directive between authorities should, as a rule, be carried

out through the decentralised IT system established by Regulation (EU) 2023/2844. In

particular, that decentralised IT system should, as a rule, be used for the exchange of

the EIO and ERPO forms, as well as for any other official communication between the

authorities under this Directive.

(68) Where this Directive provides, in respect of certain communications, that the

communication may be carried out by “any means” or by “any appropriate means”,

authorities should have discretion as to which method of communication to use. Such

provisions should be understood as identifying situations in which the use of the

decentralised IT system may not be appropriate pursuant to Regulation (EU)

2023/2844. In those situations, authorities should be able to use other means of

communication, provided that the exchange of information occurs in a secure and

reliable manner, in accordance with that Regulation.

(69) In order to reduce the administrative burden on competent authorities, to ensure more

complete, reliable, consistent and timely statistical reporting, the reference

implementation software developed by the Commission should programmatically

collect the statistical data necessary for monitoring purposes and such data should be

transmitted to the Commission. Where Member States choose to use a national IT

system instead of the reference implementation software developed by the

Commission, such a system could be equipped to collect those data programmatically

and, in that case, those data should be transmitted to the Commission. The e-CODEX

connector could also be equipped with a feature allowing retrieval of relevant

statistical data.

68

Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on

the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council

Decision 2002/187/JHA (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 138, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1727/oj). 69 Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network (OJ L 348,

24.12.2008, p. 130, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2008/976/oj).

EN 19 EN

 2014/41/EU recital 35

 new

(70) Where reference is made to mutual assistance in relevant international instruments,

such as in conventions concluded within the Council of Europe  or within the United

Nations,  it should be understood that between the Member States bound by this

Directive it takes precedence over those conventions.

 2014/41/EU recital 14

(71) When making a declaration concerning the language regime, Member States are

encouraged to include at least one language which is commonly used in the Union

other than their official language(s).

 2014/41/EU recital 36

(72) The categories of offences listed in Annex IXD should be interpreted consistently with

their interpretation under existing legal instruments on mutual recognition.

 2014/41/EU recital 37 (adapted)

In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States

and the Commission on explanatory documents70, Member States have undertaken to

accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or

more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the

corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the

European Parliament and the Council consider the transmission of such documents to be

justified.

 2014/41/EU recital 38 (adapted)

 new

(73) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the mutual recognition of decisions taken

to obtain evidence,  procedures for the gathering of evidence in criminal matters and

procedures to have a suspect, accused person or victim of crime participate remotely

in criminal court hearings from another Member State by videoconferencing or other

distance communication technology,  cannot be sufficiently achieved by the

Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at

Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of

subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the TEU. In accordance with the principle of

proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is

necessary in order to achieve that objective  those objectives  .

70 OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14.

EN 20 EN

 2014/41/EU recital 39 (adapted)

 new

(74) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised

by Article 6 of the TEU and in the Charter, notably Title VI thereof, by international

law and international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are

party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, and in Member States' constitutions in their respective fields

of application. Nothing in this Directive may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to

execute an EIO  or an ERPO  when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of

objective elements, that the EIO  or the ERPO  has been issued for the purpose of

prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his or her sex, racial or ethnic origin,

religion, sexual orientation, nationality, language or political opinions, or that the

person's position may be prejudiced for any of these  those  reasons.

 new

(75) The processing of personal data under this Directive involves the collection, exchange

and subsequent use, as well as onward transfer, of relevant information and evidence

for the objectives set out in Article 82 TFEU. In the interests of consistency and the

effective protection of personal data, the processing of personal data under this

Directive should comply with Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament

and of the Council71, unless the processing of personal data is carried out in the

context of proceedings as referred to in Article 5, points (b) and (c) and, in connection

to such proceedings, point (d), of this Directive, where Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of

the European Parliament and of the Council72 may apply. The issuing authority, the

executing authority, as well as other authorities competent to issue and receive

notifications or requests for consent to use previously exchanged information as

evidence, should be considered as controllers with respect to the processing of

personal data under Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The

central authorities could provide administrative support to those competent authorities

and, to the extent they are processing personal data on behalf of those controllers, they

should be considered as processors of the respective controller. As regards the

processing of personal data by Eurojust, Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European

Parliament and of the Council73 should apply, as well as the specific data protection

rules laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. As regards the processing of personal

71 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for

the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the

execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council

Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/680/oj). 72 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of

such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016,

p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj). 73 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data and repealing Regulation (EC)

No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj).

EN 21 EN

data by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), established by Council

Regulation (EU) 2017/193974, Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 should apply as of the date

of the entry into force of the amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, as well as

the specific data protection rules laid down in that Regulation.

 2014/41/EU recital 40

The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a

fundamental right. In accordance with Article 8(1) of the Charter and Article 16(1) of the

TFEU, everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning them.

 2014/41/EU recital 41

Member States should, in the application of this Directive, provide for transparent policies

with regard to the processing of personal data and for the exercise of the rights of data

subjects to legal remedies for the protection of their personal data.

 2014/41/EU recital 42

Personal data obtained under this Directive should only be processed when necessary and

should be proportionate to the purposes compatible with the prevention, investigation,

detection and prosecution of crime or enforcement of criminal sanctions and the exercise of

the rights of defence. Only authorised persons should have access to information containing

personal data which may be obtained through authentication processes.

 2014/41/EU recital 43

In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and

Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the TEU and the

TFEU, the United Kingdom has notified its wish to take part in the adoption and application

of this Directive.

 2014/41/EU recital 44

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the

United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed

to the TEU and the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not

taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

 new

(76) [In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United

Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed

to the TEU and the TFEU, Ireland has notified [, by letter of …,] its wish to take part

in the adoption and application of this Directive.] OR [In accordance with Articles 1

and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect

74 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the

establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/1939/oj).

EN 22 EN

of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and

without affecting Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of

this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.]

 2014/41/EU recital 45 (adapted)

(77) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the pPosition of Denmark,

annexed to the TEU and  to  the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the

adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

 2014/41/EU recital 46 (adapted)

(78) The European Data Protection Supervisor  was consulted in accordance with

Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and  delivered an opinion on

 […]  5 October 201075, based on Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001

of the European Parliament and of the Council76,

 new

(79) The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those

provisions which represent substantive amendment as compared to the earlier

Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under

the earlier Directive.

(80) This Directive should not affect the obligations of the Member States relating to the

time-limit for the transposition into national law of the Directive set out in Part B of

Annex X,

 2014/41

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

 new

TITLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

Subject matter

75 OJ C 355, 29.12.2010, p. 1. 76 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on

the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community

institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

EN 23 EN

1. This Directive lays down rules on:

(a) the issuing, recognition and execution of European Investigation Orders (EIO)

for the purpose of obtaining evidence in criminal matters, including for

obtaining evidence that is already in the possession of the competent

authorities of the executing State;

(b) the issuing of urgent notifications for cross-border surveillance and

notifications for cross-border investigative measures which do not require

technical assistance from another Member State, including the right of the

notified Member State to object;

(c) the issuing of requests for consent to use as evidence information previously

exchanged between law enforcement authorities or spontaneously between

judicial authorities and the granting or refusal of such consent; and

(d) the issuing, recognition and execution of European Remote Participation

Orders (ERPO), to have a suspect, accused person, or a victim of crime, who

has the status of party to criminal proceedings, participate in one or more court

hearing(s) in criminal proceedings remotely by way of videoconferencing or

other distance communication technology from another Member State.

2. This Directive shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the

fundamental rights and legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 TEU, including the

rights of defence and fair trial of persons affected by criminal proceedings, and any

obligations incumbent on judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.

3. Title III of this Directive shall not affect the right to be present at trial as enshrined in

Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 or other Union legal acts in the area

of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or criminal procedural law.

 2014/41/EU

Article 2

Definitions

1. For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions apply:

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

(a) ‘issuing State’ means the Member State in which the EIO is issued  or the

Member State in which the ERPO is issued;  :

(b) ‘executing State’ means the Member State executing the EIO, in which the

investigative measure is to be carried out  or the Member State executing the

ERPO, in which the person subject to the ERPO is located; 

(c) ‘issuing authority’ means:

(i) a judge, a court  or  , an investigating judge or a public

prosecutor competent in the case concerned; or

(ii)  a public prosecutor competent in the case concerned: 

EN 24 EN

 new

- for EIO, where national law requires prior authorisation by a judge,

court or investigating judge for the investigative measure

concerned and no such authorisation has been obtained in

accordance with national procedures, before it is transmitted to the

executing authority the EIO shall be validated by a judge, court or

investigating judge, who shall verify the conformity with the

conditions for issuing an EIO under this Directive, in particular the

conditions set out in Article 7(1);

- for ERPO, before it is transmitted to the executing authority, the

ERPO shall be validated, after examination of its conformity with

the conditions for issuing an ERPO under this Directive, by a

judge, court or investigating judge, in the issuing State;

 2014/41/EU

 new

(iii)  for EIO,  any other competent authority as defined by the issuing

State which, in the specific case, is acting in its capacity as an

investigating authority in criminal proceedings with competence to

order the gathering of evidence in accordance with national law. In

addition, before it is transmitted to the executing authority the EIO

shall be validated, after examination of its conformity with the

conditions for issuing an EIO under this Directive, in particular the

conditions set out in Article 76(1), by a judge, court, investigating

judge or a public prosecutor in the issuing State.  Where national law

requires prior authorisation by a judge, court or investigating

judge for the investigative measure concerned and

no such authorisation has been obtained in accordance with national

procedures, validation may only be carried out by a judge, court or

investigating judge;  Where the EIO has been validated by a judicial

authority, that authority may also be regarded as an issuing authority

for the purposes of transmission of the EIO;

(d) ‘executing authority’ means an authority having competence to recognise an

EIO and ensure its execution in accordance with this Directive and the

procedures applicable in a similar domestic case,  and a judge, court or

investigating judge having competence to recognise an ERPO and ensure its

execution in accordance with this Directive  . Such procedures may require a

court authorisation in the executing State where provided by its national law;.

 new

(e) ‘investigating Member State’ means a Member State in which a notification in

accordance with Article 33 or 34 is issued;

(f) ‘notified Member State’ means a Member State which receives a notification in

accordance with Article 33 or 34 and from which no technical assistance is

needed to carry out the investigative measure;

EN 25 EN

(g) ‘telecommunications’ means any communications, including both the content

of the communication and associated data, transmitted through electronic

communications networks, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Directive (EU)

2018/1972, or electronic communications services as defined in Article 2, point

(4), of that Directive;

(h) ‘decentralised IT system’ means the decentralised IT system as defined in

Article 2, point (3), of Regulation (EU) 2023/2844.

2. Where in accordance with paragraph 1 the EIO has been validated by a judicial

authority or where the ERPO has been validated by a judge or a court or

investigating judge, that authority may also be regarded as an issuing authority for

the purposes of transmission of the EIO or the ERPO.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

 TITLE II 

 CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION FOR OBTAINING EVIDENCE IN

CRIMINAL MATTERS 

CHAPTER I

THE EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER

Article 31

The European Investigation Order  EIO  and obligation to execute it

1.  An  A European Investigation Order (EIO) is a judicial decision which has

been issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State (‘the issuing

State’) to have one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in another

Member State (‘the executing State’) to obtain evidence in accordance with  this

Title and Titles I, IV and V  this Directive.  Where strictly necessary for the

execution of such investigative measures, the issuing authority may also request the

service of procedural documents to the person concerned  .

The EIO may also be issued for obtaining evidence that is already in the possession

of the competent authorities of the executing State.

2. Member States shall execute an EIO on the basis of the principle of mutual

recognition and in accordance with  this Title and Titles I, IV and V  this

Directive.

3. The issuing of an EIO may be requested by a suspected or accused person, or by a

lawyer on his behalf, within the framework of applicable defence rights in

conformity with national criminal procedure.

4. This Directive shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the

fundamental rights and legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU,

including the rights of defence of persons subject to criminal proceedings, and any

obligations incumbent on judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.

EN 26 EN

Article 43

Scope of the EIO

The EIO shall cover any investigative measure with the exception of the setting up of a joint

investigation team and the gathering of evidence within such a team as provided in Article 13

of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of

the European Union77 (‘the Convention’) and in Council Framework Decision

2002/465/JHA78, other than for the purposes of applying, respectively, Article 13(8) of the

Convention and Article 1(8) of the Framework Decision.

 new

The EIO shall also cover the service of procedural documents to the person concerned, insofar

as such service is strictly necessary for the execution of an investigative measure aimed at

obtaining evidence which was requested in the EIO.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

Article 54

Types of proceedings for which the EIO can be issued

An EIO may be issued:

(a) with respect to criminal proceedings that are brought by, or that may be

brought before, a judicial authority in respect of a criminal offence under the national

law of the issuing State;

(b) in proceedings brought by administrative authorities in respect of acts which

are punishable under the national law of the issuing State by virtue of being

infringements of the rules of law and where the decision may give rise to

proceedings before a court having jurisdiction, in particular, in criminal matters;

(c) in proceedings brought by judicial authorities in respect of acts which are

punishable under the national law of the issuing State by virtue of being

infringements of the rules of law, and where the decision may give rise to

proceedings before a court having jurisdiction, in particular, in criminal matters; and

(d) in connection with proceedings referred to in points (a), (b), and (c) which

relate to offences or infringements for which a legal person may be held liable or

punished in the issuing State.

Article 6 5

Content and form of the EIO

1. The EIO in the form set out in Annex IA shall be completed, signed, and its content

certified as accurate and correct by the issuing authority.

77 Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union,

on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (OJ C

197, 12.7.2000, p. 3). 78 Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (OJ L 162,

20.6.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/465/oj).

EN 27 EN

The EIO shall, in particular, contain the following information:

(a) data about the issuing authority and, where applicable, the validating authority;

(b) the object of and reasons for the EIO;

(c) the necessary information available on the person(s) concerned;

(d) a description of the criminal act, which is the subject of the investigation or

proceedings, and the applicable provisions of the criminal law of the issuing

State;

(e) a description of the investigative measures(s) requested and the evidence to be

obtained;.

 new

(f) where applicable, a confirmation that the requested investigative measure(s)

has been authorised by a judge, a court or an investigating judge, including the

date and reference number of the authorising decision, except where the EIO is

issued or validated by a judge, a court or an investigating judge;

(g) information about the possibilities for seeking legal remedies.

 2014/41/EU

2. Each Member State shall indicate the language(s) which, among the official

languages of the institutions of the Union and in addition to the official language(s)

of the Member State concerned, may be used for completing or translating the EIO

when the Member State concerned is the executing State.

3. The competent authority of the issuing State shall translate the EIO set out in Annex

IA into an official language of the executing State or any other language indicated by

the executing State in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.

 new

4. Where the issuing authority requests the service of procedural documents necessary

for the execution of an investigative measure requested in the EIO, and there is

reason to believe that the person concerned does not understand the language in

which the document to be served is drawn up, such a document must be accompanied

by a translation into the language which the addressee understands.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

CHAPTER II

PROCEDURES AND SAFEGUARDS FOR THE ISSUING STATE

Article 76

Conditions for issuing and transmitting an EIO

EN 28 EN

1. The issuing authority may only issue an EIO where the following conditions have

been met:

(a) the issuing of the EIO is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of the

proceedings referred to in Article 54 taking into account the rights of the

suspected or accused person; and

(b) the investigative measure(s) indicated in the EIO could have been ordered

under the same conditions in a similar domestic case.

2. The conditions referred to in paragraph 1 shall be assessed by the issuing authority in

each case.

3. Where the executing authority has reason to believe that the conditions referred to in

paragraph 1 have not been met, it may consult the issuing authority on the

importance of executing the EIO. After that consultation the issuing authority may

decide to withdraw the EIO.

Article 87

Transmission of the EIO

 2023/2843 Art. 11.2

 new

1. The EIO completed in accordance with Article 65 shall be transmitted by the issuing

authority  directly  to the executing authority  or, where applicable, with the

involvement of the central authority referred to in Article 52 .

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

2. Any further  All other  official communication shall be made directly between

the issuing authority and the executing authority  or, where applicable, with the

involvement of the central authority referred to in Article 52  .

3. 5. If  Where  the identity of the executing authority is unknown, the issuing

authority shall make all necessary inquiries, including via the EJN contact points,

 of the European Judicial Network as provided for by Decision 2008/976/JHA 

in order to obtain the information from the executing State.

4. The issuing authority may transmit EIOs via the telecommunications system of the

European Judicial Network (EJN), as set up by Council Joint Action. 98/428/JHA79.

46. Where the authority in the executing State which receives the EIO has no

competence to recognise the EIO or to take the necessary measures for its execution,

it shall, ex officio, transmit the EIO to the executing authority and so inform the

issuing authority.

57. All difficulties concerning the transmission or authenticity of any document needed

for the execution of the EIO shall be dealt with by direct contacts between the issuing

79 Joint Action 98/428/JHA of 29 June 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the

Treaty on European Union, on the creation of a European Judicial Network (OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 4).

EN 29 EN

authority and the executing authority involved or, where appropriate, with the

involvement of the central authorities of the Member States.

Article 98

EIO related to an earlier EIO

1. Where an issuing authority issues an EIO which supplements an earlier EIO, it shall

indicate this fact in the EIO.

2. If  Where  the issuing authority assists in the execution of the EIO in the

executing State, in accordance with Article 109(4), it may, without prejudice to

notifications made under Article 5833(1), point (c), address an EIO which

supplements an earlier EIO directly to the executing authority, while present in that

 the executing  State.

3. The EIO which supplements an earlier EIO shall be certified in accordance with the

first subparagraph of Article 65(1), and, where applicable, be validated in accordance

with Article 2(c)  2(1), point (c)  .

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES AND SAFEGUARDS FOR THE EXECUTING STATE

Article 109

Recognition and execution

1. The executing authority shall recognise an EIO, transmitted in accordance with

 the applicable provisions of  this Directive, without any further formality

being required, and ensure its execution in the same way and under the same

modalities as if the investigative measure concerned had been ordered by an

authority of the executing State, unless that authority decides to invoke one of the

grounds for non-recognition or non-execution or one of the grounds for

postponement provided for in this  Title  Directive.

2. The executing authority shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly

indicated by the issuing authority unless otherwise provided in this  Title 

Directive and provided that such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the

fundamental principles of law of the executing State.

3. Where an executing authority receives an EIO which has not been issued by an

issuing authority as specified in Article 2(c)  2(1), point (c) , the executing

authority shall return the EIO to the issuing State.

4. The issuing authority may request that one or more authorities of the issuing State

assist in the execution of the EIO in support to the competent authorities of the

executing State to the extent that the designated authorities of the issuing State would

be able to assist in the execution of the investigative measures indicated in the EIO in

a similar domestic case. The executing authority shall comply with this request

provided that such assistance is not contrary to the fundamental principles of law of

the executing State or does not harm its essential national security interests.

EN 30 EN

5. The authorities of the issuing State present in the executing State shall be bound by

the law of the executing State during the execution of the EIO. They shall not have

any law enforcement powers in the territory of the executing State, unless the

execution of such powers in the territory of the executing State is in accordance with

the law of the executing State and to the extent agreed between the issuing authority

and the executing authority.

6. The issuing authority and executing authority may consult each other, by any

appropriate means, with a view to facilitating the efficient application of this Article.

Article 1110

Recourse to a different type of investigative measure

1. The executing authority shall have, wherever possible, recourse to an investigative

measure other than that provided for in the EIO where:

(a) the investigative measure indicated in the EIO does not exist under the law of

the executing State; or

(b) the investigative measure indicated in the EIO would not be available in a

similar domestic case.

2. Without prejudice to Article 1211, paragraph (1) does not apply to the following

investigative measures, which always have to be available under the law of the

executing State:

(a) the obtaining of information or evidence which is already in the possession of

the executing authority and the information or evidence could have been

obtained, in accordance with the law of the executing State, in the framework

of criminal proceedings or for the purposes of the EIO;

(b) the obtaining of information contained in databases held by police or judicial

authorities and directly accessible by the executing authority in the framework

of criminal proceedings;

(c) the hearing of a witness, expert, victim, suspected or accused person or third

party in the territory of the executing State;

(d) any non-coercive investigative measure as defined under the law of the

executing State;

(e) the identification of persons holding a subscription of a specified phone

number or IP address.

3. The executing authority may also have recourse to an investigative measure other

than that indicated in the EIO where the investigative measure selected by the

executing authority would achieve the same result by less intrusive means than the

investigative measure indicated in the EIO.

4. When the executing authority decides to avail itself of the possibility referred to in

paragraphs 1 and 3, it shall first inform the issuing authority, which may decide to

withdraw or supplement the EIO.

5. Where, in accordance with paragraph 1, the investigative measure indicated in the

EIO does not exist under the law of the executing State or it would not be available

in a similar domestic case and where there is no other investigative measure which

would have the same result as the investigative measure requested, the executing

EN 31 EN

authority shall notify the issuing authority that it has not been possible to provide the

assistance requested.

Article 1211

Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution

1. Without prejudice to Article  1(2)  1(4), recognition or execution of an EIO may

be refused in the executing State where:

(a) there is an immunity or a privilege under the law of the executing State which

makes it impossible to execute the EIO or there are rules on determination and

limitation of criminal liability relating to freedom of the press and freedom of

expression in other media, which make it impossible to execute the EIO;

(b) in a specific case the execution of the EIO would harm essential national

security interests, jeopardise the source of the information or involve the use of

classified information relating to specific intelligence activities;

(c) the EIO has been issued in proceedings referred to in Article 54, points (b) and

(c), and the investigative measure would not be authorised under the law of the

executing State in a similar domestic case;

(d) the execution of the EIO would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem;

(e) the EIO relates to a criminal offence which is alleged to have been committed

outside the territory of the issuing State and wholly or partially on the territory

of the executing State, and the conduct in connection with which the EIO is

issued is not an offence in the executing State;

(f) there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the investigative

measure indicated in the EIO would be incompatible with the executing State's

obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter;

(g) the conduct for which the EIO has been issued does not constitute an offence

under the law of the executing State, unless it concerns an offence listed within

the categories of offences set out in Annex IXD, as indicated by the issuing

authority in the EIO, if it is punishable in the issuing State by a custodial

sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years; or

(h) the use of the investigative measure indicated in the EIO is restricted under the

law of the executing State to a list or category of offences or to offences

punishable by a certain threshold, which does not include the offence covered

by the EIO.

2. Paragraphs 1, points (g) and 1(h), do  shall  not apply to investigative measures

referred to in Article 1110(2).

3. Where the EIO concerns an offence in connection with taxes or duties, customs and

exchange, the executing authority shall not refuse recognition or execution on the

ground that the law of the executing State does not impose the same kind of tax or

duty or does not contain a tax, duty, customs and exchange regulation of the same

kind as the law of the issuing State.

4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f), of paragraph 1

before deciding not to recognise or not to execute an EIO, either in whole or in part,

the executing authority shall consult the issuing authority, by any appropriate means,

EN 32 EN

and shall, where appropriate, request the issuing authority to supply any necessary

information without delay.

5. In the case referred to in paragraph 1, point (a), and where power to waive the

privilege or immunity lies with an authority of the executing State, the executing

authority shall request it to exercise that power forthwith. Where power to waive the

privilege or immunity lies with an authority of another State or international

organisation, it shall be for the issuing authority to request the authority concerned to

exercise that power.

Article 1312

Time limits for recognition or execution

1. The decision on the recognition or execution  of the EIO  shall be taken and

the investigative measure shall be carried out with the same celerity and priority as

for a similar domestic case and, in any case, within the time limits provided in this

Article.

2. Where the issuing authority has indicated in the EIO that, due to procedural

deadlines, the seriousness of the offence or other particularly urgent circumstances, a

shorter deadline than those provided in this Article is necessary, or if the issuing

authority has indicated in the EIO that the investigative measure must be carried out

on a specific date, the executing authority shall take as full account as possible of this

requirement.

2. 3. Where no urgency is indicated,  , tThe executing authority shall:

(a) take the decision on the recognition or execution of the EIO as soon as possible

and, without prejudice to paragraph 5, no later than 30 days after the receipt of

the EIO by the competent executing authority;.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

 (b) carry out the investigative measure without delay and no later than 90 days

following the taking of the decision referred to in point (a), 4Uunless

grounds for postponement under Article 15 exist or evidence mentioned

 referred to  in the investigative measure covered by the EIO is already

in the possession of the executing State, the executing authority shall carry out

the investigative measure without delay and without prejudice to paragraph 5,

not later than 90 days following the taking of the decision referred to in

paragraph 3.

 new

3. Where the issuing authority has indicated in the EIO that, because of procedural

deadlines, the seriousness of the offence or other particularly urgent circumstances, a

shorter deadline than those provided in this Article is necessary, or where the issuing

authority has indicated in the EIO that the investigative measure must be carried out

on a specific date, the executing authority shall give that request priority and shall

take it into account to the maximum extent possible when executing the investigative

measure.

EN 33 EN

4. Where the EIO concerns measures requiring the gathering of evidence in real time,

continuously and over a certain period of time, as referred to in Article 28, the

interception of telecommunications, as referred to in Article 31, or cross-border

surveillance, as referred to in Article 30, the executing authority shall:

(a) treat the request as requiring immediate attention;

(b) take the decision on recognition or execution without delay;

(c) where necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the measure, permit its

provisional execution pending the decision on recognition or execution of an

EIO.

5. Provisional execution of a measure referred to in paragraph 4, point (c), shall cease

where the recognition or execution of the EIO is refused. Any material

obtained may be used only where strictly necessary to prevent an immediate and

serious threat to public security. The executing authority shall be notified of any such

use and of the reasons for it.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

6. 5. If  Where  it is not practicable in a specific case for the competent

executing authority to meet the time limit set out in paragraph 3  2, point (a),  or

the  shorter deadline or the  specific date set out in paragraph  3  2, it shall,

without delay, inform the competent authority of the issuing State by any means,

giving the reasons for the delay and the estimated time necessary for the decision to

be taken. In such a case, the time limit laid down in paragraph 3  2, point (a), 

may be extended by a maximum of 30 days.

7. 6. If  Where  it is not practicable in a specific case for the competent

executing authority to meet the time limit set out in paragraph 4  2, point (b), , it

shall, without delay, inform the competent authority of the issuing State by any

means, giving the reasons for the delay and it shall consult with the issuing authority

on the appropriate timing to carry out the investigative measure.

 new

8. Where execution of the EIO is delayed due to privilege or immunity under the

national law of the executing State, the time-limits set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall

commence only from the day on which the executing authority is informed of the

fact that the privilege or immunity has been waived.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

Article 1413

Transfer of evidence

1. The executing authority shall, without undue delay, transfer the evidence obtained or

already in the possession of the competent authorities of the executing State as a

result of the execution of the EIO to the issuing State.

EN 34 EN

Where requested in the EIO and if  where  possible under the law of the

executing State, the evidence shall be immediately transferred to the competent

authorities of the issuing State assisting in the execution of the EIO in accordance

with Article 109(4).

2. The transfer of the evidence may be suspended, pending a decision regarding a legal

remedy, unless sufficient reasons are indicated in the EIO that an immediate transfer

is essential for the proper conduct of its investigations or for the preservation of

individual rights. However, the transfer of evidence shall be suspended if

 where  it would cause serious and irreversible damage to the person

concerned.

3. When transferring the evidence obtained, the executing authority shall indicate

whether it requires the evidence to be returned to the executing State as soon as it is

no longer required in the issuing State.

4. Where the objects, documents, or data concerned are already relevant for other

proceedings, the executing authority may, at the explicit request of and after

consultations with the issuing authority, temporarily transfer the evidence on the

condition that it be returned to the executing State as soon as it is no longer required

in the issuing State or at any other time or occasion agreed between the competent

authorities.

 new

5. Where applicable, the executing authority shall indicate whether the use of such

evidence is subject to conditions under Article 21.

 2014/41/EU

Article 15

Grounds for postponement of recognition or execution

1. The recognition or execution of the EIO may be postponed in the executing State

where:

(a) its execution might prejudice an on-going criminal investigation or

prosecution, until such time as the executing State deems reasonable;

(b) the objects, documents, or data concerned are already being used in other

proceedings, until such time as they are no longer required for that purpose.

 2023/2843 Art. 11.3

2. As soon as the grounds for postponement have ceased to exist, the executing

authority shall forthwith take the necessary measures for the execution of the EIO

and inform the issuing authority thereof.

EN 35 EN

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

Article 16

Obligation to inform

1. The competent authority in the executing State which receives the EIO shall, without

delay, and in any case within a week of the reception of an EIO, acknowledge

reception of the EIO by completing and sending the form set out in Annex IIB.

Where a central authority has been designated in accordance with Article 7(3)

 52  , this  the  obligation  laid down in the first subparagraph  is

applicable both to the central authority  of the executing state  and to the

executing authority which receives the EIO from the  such  central authority.

In the cases referred to in Article 7(6)8(4), this  the  obligation  laid down in

the first subparagraph  applies both to the competent authority which initially

received the EIO and to the executing authority to which the EIO is finally

transmitted.

 2023/2843 Art. 11.4(a)

 new

2. Without prejudice to Article 1110(4) and (5), the executing authority shall inform the

issuing authority immediately by any means:

(a) if it is impossible for the executing authority to take a decision on the

recognition or execution due to the fact that the form provided for in Annex

IA is incomplete or manifestly incorrect;

(b) if the executing authority, in the course of the execution of the EIO, considers

without further enquiries that it may be appropriate to carry out investigative

measures not initially foreseen, or which could not be specified when the EIO

was issued, in order to enable the issuing authority to take further action in

the specific case; or

(c) if the executing authority establishes that, in a specific case, it cannot comply

with formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the issuing authority

in accordance with Article 109.

Upon request by the issuing authority, the information shall be confirmed without

delay in accordance with Article  51  5a.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

➔1 2023/2843 Art. 11.4(b)

3. ➔1 Without prejudice to Article 1110(4) and (5), the executing authority shall

inform the issuing authority without delay: 

(a) of any decision taken pursuant to Articles 1110 or 1211;

EN 36 EN

(b) of any decision to postpone the execution or recognition of the EIO, the

reasons for the postponement and, if  where  possible, the expected

duration of the postponement.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

 CHAPTER IV 

 LEGAL REMEDIES, SAFEGUARDS AND LIABILITY 

Article 1714

Legal remedies

1. Member States shall ensure that  effective  legal remedies equivalent to those

available in a similar domestic case, are available  to suspects, accused persons

and any other persons whose rights are adversely affected by  are applicable to the

investigative measures indicated in the EIO.  Where the EIO is issued for obtaining

evidence that is already in the possession of the competent authorities of the

executing State, Member States shall ensure that legal remedies equivalent to those

available in a similar domestic case are available in the executing State to suspects,

accused persons and any other persons whose rights are adversely affected to

challenge the lawfulness of the investigative measures carried out to collect that

evidence. 

2. The substantive reasons for issuing the EIO may be challenged only in an action

brought in the issuing State, without prejudice to the guarantees of fundamental

rights in the executing State.

3. Where it would not undermine the need to ensure confidentiality of an investigation

under Article 2019(1), the issuing authority and the executing authority shall take the

appropriate measures to ensure that information is provided about the possibilities

under national law for seeking the legal remedies when these become applicable and

in due time to ensure that they can be exercised effectively.

4. Member States shall ensure that the time-limits for seeking a legal remedy shall be

the same as those that are provided for in similar domestic cases and are applied in a

way that guarantees the possibility of the effective exercise of these legal remedies

for the parties concerned.

5. The issuing authority and the executing authority shall inform each other about the

legal remedies sought against the issuing, the recognition or the execution of an EIO.

 The executing authority shall inform the issuing authority where a legal remedy is

sought to challenge the lawfulness of the investigative measures caried out to collect

the evidence, which where an EIO is issued for obtaining that evidence that is

already in the possession of the competent authorities of the executing State. 

6. A legal challenge shall not suspend the execution of the investigative measure, unless

it is provided in similar domestic cases.

7. The issuing State shall take into account a successful challenge against the

recognition or execution of an EIO in accordance with its own national law. Without

prejudice to national procedural rules Member States shall ensure that in criminal

EN 37 EN

proceedings in the issuing State the rights of the defence and the fairness of the

proceedings are respected when assessing evidence obtained through the EIO.

Article 1817

Criminal liability regarding officials

When present in the territory of the executing State in the framework of the application of this

 Title  Directive, officials from the issuing State shall be regarded as officials of the

executing State with respect to offences committed against them or by them.

Article 1918

Civil liability regarding officials

1. Where, in the framework of the application of this  Title  Directive, officials of

a Member State are present in the territory of another Member State, the former

Member State shall be liable for any damage caused by its officials during their

operations, in accordance with the law of the Member State in whose territory they

are operating.

2. The Member State in whose territory the damage referred to in paragraph 1 was

caused shall make good such damage under the conditions applicable to damage

caused by its own officials.

3. The Member State whose officials have caused damage to any person in the territory

of another Member State shall reimburse in full any sums the latter Member State

has paid to the victims or persons entitled on their behalf.

4. Without prejudice to the exercise of its rights vis-à-vis third parties and with the

exception of paragraph 3, each Member State shall refrain in cases referred to in

paragraph 1 from requesting reimbursement of damages it has sustained from another

Member State.

Article 2019

Confidentiality

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in the execution

of an EIO the issuing authority and the executing authority take due account of the

confidentiality of the investigation.

2. The executing authority shall, in accordance with its national law, guarantee the

confidentiality of the facts and the substance of the EIO, except to the extent

necessary to execute the investigative measure. If  Where  the executing

authority cannot comply with the requirement of confidentiality, it shall notify the

issuing authority without delay.

3. The issuing authority shall, in accordance with its national law and unless otherwise

indicated by the executing authority, not disclose any evidence or information

provided by the executing authority, except to the extent that its disclosure is

necessary for the investigations or proceedings described in the EIO.

4. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that banks do not

disclose to the bank customer concerned or to other third persons that information

EN 38 EN

has been transmitted to the issuing State in accordance with Articles 26 and 27 or

that an investigation is being carried out.

 new

5. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not affect Article 21 on conditions for the subsequent use and

onward transfer of information or evidence.

Article 21

Conditions for the subsequent use and onward transfer of information or evidence

1. Where information or evidence has been obtained as a result of execution of an EIO

or in accordance with Articles 33 and 34 , and in a similar domestic case the law of

the executing State or the notified Member State provides for conditions limiting the

use of the information or evidence for purposes other than those for which it was

gathered, the competent authority of that Member State, shall indicate , at the time

when the information or evidence is transferred and, in the case of a notification

under Articles 33 or 34, without delay and at the latest within 96 hours after the

receipt of the notification that such conditions also apply in the Member State which

obtained the information or evidence under this Title.

2. The issuing authority or, where applicable, the competent authority of the

investigating Member State (‘requesting authority’) shall obtain the prior consent of

the executing authority or, where applicable, the competent authority of the notified

Member State (‘requested authority’) to use that information or evidence for the

purposes other than those for which it was collected or to a transfer of information or

evidence to another Member State, a third country or an international organisation in

following cases:

(a) where conditions have been indicated pursuant to paragraph 1, before using the

information or evidence for purposes other than those for which it was

collected;

(b) in all cases, before transmitting the information or evidence to another Member

State, a third country or an international organisation.

3. Request for consent under paragraph 2 in the form set out in Annex IV shall be

completed, signed, and its content certified as accurate and correct by the requesting

authority. It shall be translated into an official language of the Member State, to

which the request is addressed, or any other language accepted by that State in

accordance with Article 6(2).

4. The requested authority shall decide on the request as soon as possible and no later

than 14 days after receipt thereof. Where it is not practicable to comply with that

time limit, the requested authority shall inform the requesting authority without

delay, stating the reasons, and may extend the time limit by up to 10 days.

5. Without affecting paragraph 6, consent shall be granted except in any of the

following situations:

(a) a ground for non-recognition or non-execution of an EIO, or where applicable

a ground for objection under Articles 33 or 34, applies;

EN 39 EN

(b) the requested use or onward transfer would affect an ongoing criminal

investigation or prosecution;

(c) the conditions laid down in Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Chapter

V of Directive (EU) 2016/680 are not met.

The decision under paragraph 4 may be postponed for as long as such a ground

persists.

6. The requested authority may, as a condition for granting consent to the transfer of

information or evidence to another Member State, a third country or an international

organisation, require that the request for such consent be accompanied by an EIO, a

request for mutual legal assistance or an equivalent judicial cooperation instrument

issued by the authorities competent in the specific case.7. Where, because of an

immediate and serious threat to public security, prior consent cannot be obtained, the

information or evidence may be used or transmitted without delay, provided that the

requested authority is notified within 24 hours and informed of the reasons justifying

urgency.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

CHAPTER IV

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN INVESTIGATIVE MEASURES

Article 22

Temporary transfer to the issuing State of persons held in custody for the purpose of

carrying out an investigative measure

1. An EIO may be issued for the temporary transfer of a person in custody in the

executing State for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure with a view

to gathering evidence for which the presence of that person on the territory of the

issuing State is required, provided that he shall be sent back within the period

stipulated by the executing State.

2. In addition to the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution referred to in

Article 1211 the execution of the EIO may also be refused  where  if:

(a) the person in custody does not consent; or

(b) the transfer is liable to prolong the detention of the person in custody.

3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, point (a), where the executing State considers it

necessary in view of the person's age or physical or mental condition, the opportunity

to state the opinion on the temporary transfer shall be given to the legal

representative of the person in custody.

4. In cases referred to in paragraph 1, transit of the person in custody through the

territory of a third Member State (‘the Member State of transit’) shall be granted on

application, accompanied by all necessary documents.

5. The practical arrangements regarding the temporary transfer of the person including

the details of his custody conditions in the issuing State, and the dates by which he

EN 40 EN

must be transferred from and returned to the territory of the executing State shall be

agreed between the issuing State and the executing State, ensuring that the physical

and mental condition of the person concerned, as well as the level of security

required in the issuing State, are taken into account.

6. The transferred person shall remain in custody in the territory of the issuing State

and, where applicable, in the territory of the Member State of transit, for the acts or

convictions for which he has been kept in custody in the executing State, unless the

executing State applies for his release.

7. The period of custody in the territory of the issuing State shall be deducted from the

period of detention which the person concerned is or will be obliged to undergo in

the territory of the executing State.

8. Without prejudice to paragraph 6, a transferred person shall not be prosecuted or

detained or subjected to any other restriction of his personal liberty in the issuing

State for acts committed or convictions handed down before his departure from the

territory of the executing State and which are not specified in the EIO.

9. The immunity referred to in paragraph 8 shall cease to exist if  where  the

transferred person, having had an opportunity to leave for a period of 15 consecutive

days from the date when his presence is no longer required by the issuing authorities,

has either:

(a) nevertheless remained in the territory; or

(b) having left it, has returned.

10. Costs resulting from the application of this Article shall be borne in accordance with

Article 5421, except for the costs arising from the transfer of the person to and from

the issuing State which shall be borne by that State.

Article 23

Temporary transfer to the executing State of persons held in custody for the purpose of

carrying out an investigative measure

1. An EIO may be issued for the temporary transfer of a person held in custody in the

issuing State for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure with a view to

gathering evidence for which his presence on the territory of the executing State is

required.

2. Paragraph 2, point (a), and paragraphs 3 to 9 of Article 22 are applicable mutatis

mutandis to the temporary transfer under this Article.

3. Costs resulting from the application of this Article shall be borne in accordance with

Article 5421, except for the costs arising from the transfer of the person concerned to

and from the executing State which shall be borne by the issuing State.

Article 24

Hearing by videoconference or other  distance communication technology 

audiovisual transmission

1. Where a person is in the territory of the executing State and has to be heard as a

witness or expert by the competent authorities of the issuing State, the issuing

authority may issue an EIO in order to hear the witness or expert by videoconference

EN 41 EN

or other  distance communication technology  audiovisual transmission in

accordance with paragraphs 5, 6 and to 7.

The issuing authority may also issue an EIO for the purpose of hearing a suspected or

accused person by videoconference or other audiovisual transmission  distance

communication technology  ,  where that measure has the purpose of gathering

evidence and its execution does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose  .

2. In addition to the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution referred to in

Article 1211, execution of an EIO concerning the hearing of a suspect or accused

person may be refused if  where  either: (a) the  concerned 

suspected or accused person does not consent.; or

(b) the execution of such an investigative measure in a particular case would be

contrary to the fundamental principles of the law of the executing State.

3. The issuing authority and the executing authority shall agree the practical

arrangements. When agreeing such arrangements, the executing authority shall

undertake to:

(a) summon the witness or expert concerned, indicating the time and the venue of

the hearing;

(b) summon the suspected or accused persons to appear for the hearing in

accordance with the detailed rules laid down in the law of the executing State

and inform such persons about their rights under the law of the issuing State, in

such a time as to allow them to exercise their rights of defence effectively;

(c) ensure the identity of the person to be heard.

4. If in circumstances of a particular case the executing authority has no access to

technical means for a hearing held by videoconference  or other distance

communication technology  , such means may be made available to it by the

issuing State by mutual agreement.

5. Where a hearing is held by videoconference or other audiovisual transmission

 distance communication technology  , the following rules shall apply:

(a) the competent authority of the executing State shall be present during the

hearing, where necessary assisted by an interpreter, and shall also be

responsible for ensuring both the identity of the person to be heard and respect

for the fundamental principles of the law of the executing State;

If the executing authority is of the view that during the hearing the

fundamental principles of the law of the executing State are being infringed, it

shall immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that the hearing

continues in accordance with those principles;

(b) measures for the protection of the person to be heard shall be agreed, where

necessary, between the competent authorities of the issuing State and the

executing State;

(c) the hearing shall be conducted directly by, or under the direction of, the

competent authority of the issuing State in accordance with its own laws;

(d) at the request of the issuing State or the person to be heard, the executing State

shall ensure that the person to be heard is assisted by an interpreter, if

 where  necessary;

EN 42 EN

(e) suspected or accused persons shall be informed in advance of the hearing of

the procedural rights which would accrue to them, including the right not to

testify, under the law of the executing State and the issuing State. Witnesses

and experts may claim the right not to testify which would accrue to them

under the law of either the executing or the issuing State and shall be informed

about this  that  right in advance of the hearing.

6. Without prejudice to any measures agreed for the protection of persons, on the

conclusion of the hearing, the executing authority shall draw up minutes indicating

the date and place of the hearing, the identity of the person heard, the identities and

functions of all other persons in the executing State participating in the hearing, any

oaths taken and the technical conditions under which the hearing took place. The

document shall be forwarded by the executing authority to the issuing authority.

7. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where the

person is being heard within its territory in accordance with this Article and refuses

to testify when under an obligation to testify or does not testify the truth, its national

law applies in the same way as if the hearing took place in a national procedure.

Article 25

Hearing by telephone conference

1. If a person is in the territory of one Member State and has to be heard as a witness or

expert by competent authorities of another Member State, the issuing authority of the

latter Member State may, where it is not appropriate or possible for the person to be

heard to appear in its territory in person, and after having examined other suitable

means, issue an EIO in order to hear a witness or expert by telephone conference as

provided for in paragraph 2.

2. Unless otherwise agreed, Article 24(3), (5), (6) and (7) shall apply mutatis mutandis

to hearings by telephone conference.

Article 26

Information on bank and other financial accounts

1. An EIO may be issued in order to determine whether any natural or legal person

subject to the criminal proceedings concerned holds or controls one or more

accounts, of whatever nature, in any bank located in the territory of the executing

State, and if so, to obtain all the details of the identified accounts.

2. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to enable it to provide the

information referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the conditions under this

Article.

3. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall also, if  where  requested in

the EIO, include accounts for which the person subject to the criminal proceedings

concerned has powers of attorney.

4. The obligation set out in this Article shall apply only to the extent that the

information is in the possession of the bank keeping the account.

5. In the EIO the issuing authority shall indicate the reasons why it considers that the

requested information is likely to be of substantial value for the purpose of the

criminal proceedings concerned and on what grounds it presumes that banks in the

EN 43 EN

executing State hold the account and, to the extent available, which banks may be

involved. It shall also include in the EIO any information available which may

facilitate its execution.

6. An EIO may also be issued to determine whether any natural or legal person subject

to the criminal proceedings concerned holds one or more accounts, in any non-bank

financial institution located on the territory of the executing State. Paragraphs 3, 4

and to 5 shall apply mutatis mutandis. In such case and in addition to the grounds for

non-recognition and non-execution referred to in Article 1211, the execution of the

EIO may also be refused if  where  the execution of the investigative measure

would not be authorised in a similar domestic case.

Article 27

Information on banking and other financial operations

1. An EIO may be issued in order to obtain the details of specified bank accounts and of

banking operations which have been carried out during a defined period through one

or more accounts specified therein, including the details of any sending or recipient

account.

2. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to enable it to provide the

information referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the conditions under this

Article.

3. The obligation set out in this Article shall apply only to the extent that the

information is in the possession of the bank in which the account is held.

4. In the EIO the issuing authority shall indicate the reasons why it considers the

requested information relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings

concerned.

5. An EIO may also be issued with regard to the information provided for in

paragraph 1 with reference to the financial operations conducted by non-banking

financial institutions. Paragraphs 3 andto 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis. In such case

and in addition to the grounds for non-recognition and non-execution referred to in

Article 1211, the execution of the EIO may also be refused where the execution of

the investigative measure would not be authorised in a similar domestic case.

Article 28

Investigative measures implying the gathering of evidence in real time, continuously and

over a certain period of time

1. When the EIO is issued for the purpose of executing an investigative measure

requiring the gathering of evidence in real time, continuously and over a certain

period of time, such as:

(a) the monitoring of banking or other financial operations that are being carried

out through one or more specified accounts;

(b) the controlled deliveries on the territory of the executing State;

 new

(c) the surveillance on the territory of the executing State;

EN 44 EN

(d) the installation and use of a technical device enabling the collection of location,

audio or visual data on the territory of the executing State,

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

its execution may be refused, in addition to the grounds for non-recognition and non-

execution referred to in Article 1211, if  where  the execution of the

investigative measure concerned would not be authorised in a similar domestic case.

2. The practical arrangements regarding the investigative measure referred to in

paragraph 1, points (b),  (c) and (d)  , and wherever else necessary shall be

agreed between the issuing State and the executing State.

3. The issuing authority shall indicate in the EIO why it considers the information

requested relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings concerned.

4. The right to act, to direct and to control operations related to the execution of an EIO

referred to in paragraph 1 shall lie with the competent authorities of the executing

State.

Article 29

Covert investigations

1. An EIO may be issued for the purpose of requesting the executing State to assist the

issuing State in the conduct of investigations into crime by officers acting under

covert or false identity (‘covert investigations’).

2. The issuing authority shall indicate in the EIO why it considers that the covert

investigation is likely to be relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings. The

decision on the recognition and execution of an EIO issued under this Article shall be

taken in each individual case by the competent authorities of the executing State with

due regard to its national law and procedures.

3. In addition to the grounds for non-recognition and non-execution referred to in

Article 1211, the executing authority may refuse to execute an EIO referred to in

paragraph 1, where:

(a) the execution of the covert investigation would not be authorised in a similar

domestic case; or

(b) it was not possible to reach an agreement on the arrangements for the covert

investigations under paragraph 4.

4. Covert investigations shall take place in accordance with the national law and

procedures of the Member State on the territory of which the covert investigation

takes place. The right to act, to direct and to control the operation related to the

covert investigation shall lie solely with the competent authorities of the executing

State. The duration of the covert investigation, the detailed conditions, and the legal

status of the officers concerned during covert investigations shall be agreed between

the issuing State and the executing State with due regard to their national laws and

procedures.

EN 45 EN

 new

Article 30

Cross-border surveillance

1. An EIO may be issued in the framework of proceedings referred to in Article 5, point

(a), for the purpose of authorising the continuation, in the territory of the executing

State, of surveillance initiated in the issuing State, where such surveillance consists

of the observation of a person or object by law enforcement officers and involves the

creation of audio, visual, or other records by technical means operated by law

enforcement officers for the purpose of obtaining evidence.

2. The EIO shall state the reasons justifying recourse to cross-border surveillance.

3. In addition to the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution referred to in

Article 12, the execution of the EIO referred to in paragraph 1 may also be refused

where the investigative measure would not have been authorised in a similar

domestic case. The executing authority may make its consent subject to any

conditions which would apply in a similar domestic case.

4. The duration and practical arrangements for the cross-border surveillance, including

the use of technical means and the modalities governing the conduct of the officers

involved, shall be agreed between the competent authorities of the issuing State and

the executing State. Law enforcement officers of the issuing State conducting the

cross-border surveillance shall act solely for the purpose of observation and

documentation of the cross-border surveillance, shall not exercise coercive powers

and shall not enter private premises in the territory of the executing State.

5. Upon request, cross-border surveillance shall be handed over to the law enforcement

officers of the executing State.

6. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where, on the grounds of duly justified

urgency, it is not possible to issue and transmit an EIO before the person or object

under surveillance enters the territory of the executing State, the law enforcement

officers of the issuing State may continue cross-border surveillance on the territory

of the executing State provided that:

(a) immediately after the law enforcement officers of the issuing State have

crossed the border, the authority competent for the issuing and transmission of

urgent notifications notifies by any appropriate means the authority competent

for the receipt of urgent notifications, of the continuation of the surveillance in

the executing State and of the reasons justifying the urgency;

(b) the EIO is issued and transmitted to the executing authority without delay and

no later than 48 hours after the crossing of the border referred to in point (a),

stating the reasons why its prior transmission was not possible;

(c) the cross-border surveillance is carried out in compliance with any instructions

issued by the competent authorities of the executing State;

(d) the cross-border surveillance shall cease as soon as the executing authority so

requests or where the recognition or execution of the EIO is refused;

EN 46 EN

(e) where no decision on recognition or execution of an EIO is taken within 24

hours of the transmission of the EIO, the continuation of the cross-border

surveillance shall be subject to the decision of the executing authority to permit

the provisional execution of cross-border surveillance in accordance with

Article 13(4), point (c);

(f) where the recognition or execution of the EIO is refused or the provisional

execution of cross-border surveillance is otherwise not permitted under point

(e), any material obtained from the cross-border surveillance may be used only

where strictly necessary to prevent an immediate and serious threat to public

security, and the executing authority shall be notified of any such use and of

the reasons thereof.

7. The notification referred to in paragraph 6, point (a), shall be made using the form set

out in Annex V. It shall be translated into an official language of the notified

Member State, or any other language accepted by the notified Member State in

accordance with Article 6(2). Where such a translation cannot reasonably be

provided in time, the notification may be transmitted in a language generally

understood in other Member States.

8. Where the notified authority referred to in paragraph 6, point (a), is different from

the executing authority, it shall immediately inform the executing authority.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

CHAPTER V

INTERCEPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Article 3130

Interception of telecommunications with technical assistance of another Member State

1. An EIO may be issued for the interception of telecommunications in the

Member State from which technical assistance is needed.

2. Where more than one Member State is in a position to provide the complete

necessary technical assistance for the same interception of telecommunications, the

EIO shall be sent only to one of them. Priority shall always be given to the

Member State where the subject of the interception is or will be located.

3. An EIO referred to in paragraph 1 shall also contain the following information:

(a) information for the purpose of identifying the subject of the interception;

(b) the desired duration of the interception; and

(c) sufficient technical data, in particular the target identifier, to ensure that the

EIO can be executed.

4. The issuing authority shall indicate in the EIO the reasons why it considers the

indicated investigative measure relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings

concerned.

EN 47 EN

5. In addition to the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution referred to in

Article 11, the execution of an EIO referred to in paragraph 1 may also be refused

where the investigative measure would not have been authorised in a similar

domestic case. The executing State may make its consent subject to any conditions

which would be observed in a similar domestic case.

6. An EIO referred to in paragraph 1 may be executed by:

(a) transmitting telecommunications immediately to the issuing State; or

(b) intercepting, recording and subsequently transmitting the outcome of

interception of telecommunications to the issuing State.

The issuing authority and the executing authority shall consult each other with a view

to agreeing on whether the interception is carried out in accordance with point (a) or

(b).

 new

7. Where the period for which interception of telecommunications in the

executing State is requested exceeds the period for which such an investigative

measures has been ordered, or may be carried out, in accordance with the law of the

executing State, the executing authority shall inform the issuing authority without

delay and indicate possibilities, if any, to extend that period. Where the issuing

authority intends to extend the interception of telecommunications in the

executing State beyond the duration indicated in the initial EIO, a new EIO must be

issued.

 2014/41/EU

8. 7.When issuing an EIO referred to in paragraph 1 or during the interception, the

issuing authority may, where it has a particular reason to do so, also request a

transcription, decoding or decrypting of the recording subject to the agreement of the

executing authority.

9. 8.Costs resulting from the application of this Article shall be borne in accordance

with Article 5421, except for the costs arising from the transcription, decoding and

decrypting of the intercepted communications which shall be borne by the issuing

State.

CHAPTER VI

PROVISIONAL MEASURES

Article 32

Provisional measures

1. The issuing authority may issue an EIO in order to take any measure with a view to

provisionally preventing the destruction, transformation, removal, transfer or

disposal of an item that may be used as evidence.

EN 48 EN

2. The executing authority shall decide and communicate the decision on the

provisional measure as soon as possible and, wherever practicable, within 24 hours

of receipt of the EIO.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

3. Where a provisional measure referred to in paragraph 1 is requested the issuing

authority shall indicate in the EIO whether the evidence is to be transferred to the

issuing State or is to remain in the executing State. The executing authority shall

recognise and execute the EIO and transfer the evidence in accordance with the

 applicable  procedures laid down in this Directive.

4. Where, in accordance with paragraph 3, an EIO is accompanied by an instruction that

the evidence shall remain in the executing State, the issuing authority shall indicate

the date of lifting the provisional measure referred to in paragraph 1, or the estimated

date for the submission of the request for the evidence to be transferred to the issuing

State.

5. After consulting the issuing authority, the executing authority may, in accordance

with its national law and practice, lay down appropriate conditions in light of the

circumstances of the case to limit the period for which the provisional measure

referred to in paragraph 1 is to be maintained.  Where  If, in accordance with

those conditions, it envisages lifting the provisional measure, the executing authority

shall inform the issuing authority, which shall be given the opportunity to submit its

comments. The issuing authority shall forthwith notify the executing authority that

the provisional measure referred to in paragraph 1 has been lifted.

 CHAPTER VII 

 NOTIFICATIONS FOR CROSS-BORDER INVESTIGATIVE MEASURES

CARRIED OUT WITHOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OF ANOTHER MEMBER

STATE 

Article 3331

Notification of the Member State where the subject of the interception is located from

which no technical assistance is needed

1. Where, for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure  in proceedings

referred to in Article 5, point (a), and, where related to such proceedings, those

referred to in Article 5, point (d),  the interception of telecommunications is

authorised by the competent authority of one Member State ( the  investigating 

intercepting Member State ’) and the communication address of the subject of the

interception specified in the interception order is being used on the territory of

another Member State (the ‘notified Member State’) from which no technical

assistance is needed to carry out the interception, the  investigating  intercepting

Member State shall notify the competent authority of the notified  that other 

Member State of the interception:

EN 49 EN

(a) prior to the interception in cases where the competent authority of the

 investigating  intercepting Member State knows at the time of ordering the

interception that the subject of the interception is or will be on the territory of

the notified Member State;

(b) during the interception or after the interception has been carried out,

immediately after it becomes aware that the subject of the interception is or has

been during the interception, on the territory of the notified Member State.

2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made by using the form set out in

Annex IIIC.  It shall be translated into an official language of the notified Member

State or any other language accepted by the notified Member State in accordance

with Article 6(2). 

 new

3. Where the authority in the notified Member State which receives the notification

referred to in paragraph 1 has no competence to act, it shall, without undue delay and

no later than 24 hours of receipt of a notification, transmit it to the competent

authority of the notified Member State and so inform the competent authority of the

investigating Member State.

 2014/41/EU

 new

4. 3. The competent authority of the notified Member States may, in case where the

interception would not be authorised in a similar domestic case, notify, without delay

and at the latest within 96 hours after the receipt of the notification referred to in

paragraph 1, the competent authority of the  investigating  intercepting

Member State:

(a) that the interception may not be carried out or shall be terminated; and

(b) where necessary, that any material already intercepted while the subject of the

interception was on its territory may not be used  and must be deleted  , or

may only be used under conditions which it shall specify,  including

conditions communicated pursuant to Article 21  . The competent authority

of the notified Member State shall inform the competent authority of the

 investigating  intercepting Member State of reasons justifying those

conditions.

4. Article 5(2) shall be applicable mutatis mutandis for the notification referred to in

paragraph 2.

 new

5. At the request of the competent authority of the notified Member State, the

competent authority of the investigating Member State shall provide any additional

information necessary for the notified Member State to assess whether the

interception could be authorised in a similar domestic case.

EN 50 EN

6. Where the internal procedures required under the national law of the notified

Member State cannot be completed within the 96-hour period, competent authority

of the notified Member State shall, without delay, inform the competent authority of

the investigating Member State, giving reasons, and may extend that period by an

additional maximum period of 96 hours.

7. Where no objection is raised by the competent authority of the notified Member State

within the period referred to in paragraph 4 and without prejudice to paragraph 6, the

investigating Member State may continue the interception on the territory of the

notified Member State for the duration indicated in the notification referred to in

paragraph 1. Where the competent authority of the investigating Member State

intends to extend the interception beyond the duration indicated in the initial

notification, a new notification must be made.

Article 34

Notification to the Member State of the use, in its territory, of a technical recording

device without the need for its technical assistance

1. Where, for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure in proceedings

referred to in Article 5(1), point (a), and, to insofar as they relate to such

proceedings, those referred to in Article 5(1), point (d), the use of a technical device

enabling the collection of location, audio or visual data (‘technical recording device’)

has been authorised by the competent authority of the investigating Member State

and where that device enters the territory of another Member State from which no

technical assistance is needed to continue its use, the competent authority of the

investigating Member State shall notify the competent authority of that other

Member State about the use of a technical recording device on its territory:

(a) prior to such use in cases where the competent authority of the investigating

Member State knows, at the time of ordering the use of the technical recording

device, that it will enter the territory of the notified Member State; or

(b) during or after such use as soon as it becomes aware that the technical

recording device is, or will be, on the territory of the notified Member State.

2. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article 33 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the

notifications made in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.

CHAPTER VIII

REQUESTS FOR CONSENT TO USE PREVIOUSLY EXCHANGED

INFORMATION AS EVIDENCE

Article 35

Request for consent to use previously exchanged information as evidence

1. The requesting authority may, where required under its national law or the conditions

attached to the original transmission of the information, request the consent of the

requested authority to use as evidence in criminal proceedings information that has

been previously provided to the competent authorities of one Member State (‘the

EN 51 EN

requesting State’) by the competent authorities of another Member State (‘the

requested State’):

(a) in accordance with Directive (EU) 2023/977 of the European Parliament and of

the Council80;

(b) through spontaneous exchange of information between judicial authorities

pursuant to Article 7 of the Convention.

2. For the purposes of this article, ‘requesting authority’ means the authority referred to

in Article 2(1), point (c), competent to issue a request for consent, and ‘requested

authority’ means the authority referred to in Article 2(1), point (d), competent to

respond to such a request.

3. The request for consent may be made only where the use of the information as

evidence is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of the criminal proceedings

concerned and such a request would be permissible under the same conditions in a

similar domestic case in the requesting State.

4. The request for consent in the form set out in Annex VII shall be completed, signed,

and its content certified as accurate and correct by the requesting authority. It shall

contain the information necessary to enable the requested authority to decide whether

consent may be granted. It shall be translated into an official language of the

requested State or any other language accepted by that State in accordance with

Article 6(2).

5. The requested authority shall decide on the request as soon as possible and no later

than 14 days after receipt thereof. Where it is not practicable to meet that time limit,

the requested authority shall inform the requesting authority without delay, stating

the reasons, and may extend the time limit by up to 10 days.

6. The requested authority shall grant consent, where appropriate subject to conditions,

unless one of the following grounds for refusal or postponement exist:

(a) the use of the information as evidence would not be admissible under the law

of the requested State in proceedings of the same nature as those for which

consent is requested;

(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that granting consent would prejudice

criminal proceedings pending in the requested State or would seriously harm

essential national interests;

(c) the conditions governing the use of information provided pursuant to Directive

(EU) 2023/977 are no longer fulfilled, including where the information is

inaccurate, incomplete or no longer up to date.

7. As soon as the ground for postponement referred to in paragraph 6 has ceased to

exist, the requested authority shall take a decision referred to in paragraph 5 and

inform the requesting authority thereof.

8. Article 8 shall apply mutatis mutandis to requests for consent under this Article.

9. Member States shall ensure that legal remedies equivalent to those available in a

similar domestic case shall be applicable in respect of requests for consent and

80 Directive (EU) 2023/977 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on the

exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities of Member States and repealing

Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA (OJ L 134, 22.5.2023, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/977/oj).

EN 52 EN

decisions on such requests. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article 17 shall apply

mutatis mutandis to such requests and decisions.

TITLE III

EUROPEAN REMOTE PARTICIPATION ORDER

CHAPTER I – THE EUROPEAN REMOTE PARTICIPATION ORDER

Article 36

The ERPO and obligation to execute it

1. An ERPO is a judicial decision issued by a judicial authority of a Member State to

enable a suspect, accused person, or a victim of crime, who has the status of party to

criminal proceedings, to participate in one or more court hearing(s) in criminal

proceedings remotely by means of videoconferencing or other distance

communication technology from another Member State.

2. Member States shall ensure that the necessary legal and procedural framework is in

place to allow their issuing authority to issue an ERPO in accordance with this Title.

3. Member States shall execute an ERPO on the basis of the principle of mutual

recognition and in accordance with this Title and Titles I, IV and V.

4. The ERPO shall cover remote participation in any hearing(s) before a court having

jurisdiction in criminal matters at all stages of the criminal proceedings, from the

start of the investigations until the conclusion of the proceedings, including, where

applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeals.

CHAPTER II

PROCEDURES AND SAFEGUARDS FOR THE ISSUING STATE

Article 37

Conditions for issuing and transmitting an ERPO

1. The issuing authority may issue an ERPO where all of the following conditions are

met:

(a) a suspect, accused person, or a victim of crime, is or will be resident in the

executing State, or is or will be temporarily staying in that State for justified

reasons impeding or otherwise hindering their presence in the issuing State, at

the time of the hearing(s) concerned, or is detained in the executing State in

relation to other proceedings against them;

(b) the issuing of the ERPO is considered appropriate by the issuing authority and

it is proportionate in the specific circumstances of the case to facilitate the

participation of the person concerned in court hearing(s) in criminal

EN 53 EN

proceedings in the issuing State, taking into account the rights of the person

concerned;

(c) the person concerned has given their consent to participate in the hearing(s)

remotely, in accordance with Article 38.

2. By way of derogation to paragraph 1, the issuing authority may issue an ERPO

where this is, exceptionally, required to ensure the efficient and proper

administration of justice before obtaining the consent of the person concerned

pursuant to paragraph 1(c). The issuing authority shall inform the executing authority

accordingly and shall request its assistance to seek the consent of the person

concerned, using the dedicated section of the form in Annex VIII. In such cases, the

consent of the person concerned shall be ascertained by the executing authority

before any decision on the recognition and execution of the ERPO in accordance

with Article 41 or 43 is taken.

3. By way of derogation to paragraph 1, the issuing authority may issue an ERPO

without obtaining the consent of the person concerned pursuant to paragraph 1, point

(c), in exceptional circumstances, where their participation in the hearing(s) in person

poses a serious threat to public security or public health which is shown to be

genuine and present or foreseeable, and postponing the hearing(s) or suspending the

proceedings would be contrary to the efficient and proper administration of justice,

provided the rights of the defence of the person concerned and the fairness of the

proceedings are respected.

This derogation shall not apply when the person concerned is a vulnerable person or

a child and conducting the hearing(s) remotely is not compatible with their specific

needs and best interests.

4. A suspect, accused person or victim of crime meeting the condition under paragraph

(1), point (a), may request the issuance of an ERPO before the issuing authority, in

accordance with procedures under the law of the issuing State. Such requests shall be

submitted to the issuing authority in due time before the hearing(s) concerned and

shall be examined by that authority in light of paragraph 1. The issuing authority

shall provide a reasoned decision on the request within a reasonable time.

5. Where the ERPO concerns a child who is a suspect, accused person or victim of

crime, the issuing authority shall ensure that their best interests are always a primary

consideration in the application of this Article.

Article 38

Procedure for obtaining consent

1. Where the summons to attend hearing(s) are served to the person concerned, the

issuing authority shall also, as appropriate:

(a) seek their consent to remotely participate in one or more hearing(s) by

videoconference or other distance communication technology where the

conditions set out under Article 37(1), point (a) and (b), are fulfilled; or

(b) inform the person concerned of the possibility and conditions under which, in

accordance with national law and Article 37(4), they can submit a request to

participate remotely in one or more hearing(s).

EN 54 EN

2. Before giving their consent, the suspect, accused person or victim of crime shall be

informed orally or in writing, in a language which they understand, by the competent

authorities of the issuing State of at least the following:

(a) the possibility to seek the advice of a lawyer in the issuing State in accordance

with Directive 2013/48/EU for a suspect or accused person, and with Directive

2012/29/EU and national law for victims of crime;

(b) their right to be provided with interpretation before the competent authorities

and the right to be provided with a written translation in accordance with

Directive 2010/64/EU or Directive 2012/29/EU, as appropriate;

(c) the procedure for executing an ERPO, as well as the specific rights that apply

to the person concerned during such procedure.

3. In cases referred to in paragraph 2, point (a), where the person concerned is a child

within the meaning of Article 3, point (1), of Directive (EU) 2016/800, that child

shall be assisted by a lawyer before giving their consent. Where the person

concerned is a child within the meaning of or Article 2, point 1(c), of Directive

2012/29/EU, and the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from

representing the child victim as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the

child victim, or the child victim is unaccompanied or separated from the family, the

child shall be assisted by a special representative or by a lawyer before giving their

consent.

4. Where the person concerned is a child, the holder of parental responsibility, as

defined in Article 3, point (2), of Directive (EU) 2016/800, or as referred to in

Article 1(2) of Directive 2012/29/EU, another appropriate adult or legal

representative, as referred to in Article 5(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/800 or Article

24(1), points (b) and (c), of Directive 2012/29/EU, where applicable in accordance

with those provision, shall be provided, as soon as possible, by the competent

authorities of the issuing State with the information that the child has a right to

receive in accordance with this Article.

5. Information referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 shall be provided in simple and

accessible language, taking into account any particular needs of vulnerable persons.

6. Consent to participate remotely in hearing(s) shall be given voluntarily and

unequivocally. Consent shall be recorded together with the circumstances under

which it was given, in accordance with the recording procedure required by the law

of the issuing State.

7. The time limits for indicating consent or submitting a request to participate remotely

in one or more hearing(s) shall be governed by the law of the issuing State.

8. In cases where the person concerned is present in the executing State at the time of

the summons, the issuing authority shall request the assistance of the competent

authorities in the executing State to serve the summons referred to in paragraph 1 and

to provide information to the person concerned in accordance with this article, as

well as indicate any formalities and procedures to be complied with. If consent of the

person concerned to remotely participate in the hearing(s) is sought, the competent

authorities in the executing State shall inform the issuing authority of whether

consent was obtained and shall transmit all relevant records to the issuing authority.

Where consent could not be obtained or the person concerned could not be reached,

the competent authorities of the executing State shall inform the issuing authority

accordingly.

EN 55 EN

9. Where the issuing authority has issued an ERPO pursuant to the derogation provided

for in Article 37(2) from the requirement to obtain the consent of the person

concerned to the remote participation in the hearing(s) prior to issuing the ERPO, the

executing authority shall seek the consent of the person concerned to participate

remotely in the hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates in accordance with the

requirements of this article, and complying with any formalities and procedures

indicated by the issuing authority, before taking a decision on recognition and

execution of the ERPO.

Article 39

Content and form of the ERPO

1. The ERPO in the form set out in Annex VIII shall be completed, signed, and its

content certified as accurate and correct by the issuing authority.

2. The ERPO shall, in particular, contain the following information:

(a) data about the issuing authority and, where applicable, the validating authority;

(b) the identity of the suspect, accused person or victim of crime concerned by the

ERPO, as well as any relevant information known to the issuing authority

concerning possible vulnerabilities of that person;

(c) the identity and contact details of the lawyer mandated by the person concerned

or appointed by the issuing State for the purpose of the hearing(s) to which the

ERPO relates;

(d) a description of the criminal act, which is subject to the investigation or

proceedings to which the ERPO relates and the applicable provisions of

criminal law in the issuing State;

(e) a description of the stage of the proceedings and the type, number and

indicative timing of the hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates;

(f) the reasons why remote participation in the specific hearing(s) is appropriate in

view of the conditions set out in Article 37(1);

(g) information on whether the person concerned has requested or consented to

participate remotely in the hearing(s), the application of Article 37(2) and any

formalities and procedures to be complied with when seeking the consent of

the person concerned or, where relevant, the application of Article 37(3);

(h) the proposed practical arrangements for the execution of the ERPO in

accordance with Article 42, including any measure required to accommodate

any vulnerabilities of the person concerned;

(i) any formalities and procedures expressly required by the law of the issuing

State for the execution of the ERPO.

3. Each Member State shall indicate the language(s) which, among the official

languages of the institutions of the Union and in addition to the official language(s)

of the Member State concerned, may be used for completing or translating the ERPO

when the Member State concerned is the executing State.

4. The competent authority of the issuing State shall translate the ERPO into an official

language of the executing State or any other language indicated by the executing

State in accordance with paragraph 3.

EN 56 EN

Article 40

Transmission of the ERPO

1. The ERPO completed in accordance with Article 39 shall be transmitted from the

issuing authority to the executing authority or, where applicable, with the

involvement of the central authority referred to in Article 52, via the decentralised

IT system.

2. The ERPO shall be accompanied by any additional relevant information and

documents, including the relevant records of the consent obtained.

3. If the identity of the executing authority is unknown, the issuing authority shall make

all necessary inquiries, including via the European Judicial Network contact points,

in order to obtain the information from the executing State.

4. Where the authority in the executing State which receives the ERPO has no

competence to recognise the ERPO or to take the necessary measures for its

execution, it shall, ex officio, transmit it to the executing authority and so inform the

issuing authority.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES AND SAFEGUARDS FOR THE EXECUTING STATE

Article 41

Recognition and execution

1. The executing authority shall recognise an ERPO, transmitted in accordance with

this Directive, without any further formality being required, and ensure its execution

in accordance with the modalities agreed upon with the issuing authority unless the

executing authority decides to invoke one of the grounds for non-recognition or non-

execution provided for in this Directive.

2. The executing authority shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly

indicated by the issuing authority unless otherwise provided in this Directive and

provided that such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamental

principles of law of the executing State.

3. The hearing(s) shall be conducted directly by, or under the direction of, the issuing

authority and shall be governed by the law of the issuing State. Measures taken by

the executing authority for the purpose of executing the ERPO shall be governed by

the law of the executing State, with the exception of formalities and procedures

referred to in paragraph 2 that are imposed by the issuing authority in accordance

with the law of the issuing State.

Article 42

Requirements and practical arrangements for the execution of an ERPO

1. The issuing authority and the executing authority shall agree on the practical

arrangements for the execution of the ERPO, including the timing of the hearing(s)

concerned. When agreeing such arrangements, the executing authority shall

undertake to:

EN 57 EN

(a) summon the suspect, accused person or victim of crime concerned to appear

for the remote hearing(s) in accordance with the law of the executing State and

the formalities and procedures required by the issuing authority in accordance

with Article 41(2) and, unless otherwise agreed between the issuing authority

and the executing authority, inform the person concerned about their rights

under the law of the issuing State, in such a time as to allow them to exercise

their rights effectively;

(b) verify the identity of the person concerned.

2. The issuing authority shall ensure that the person concerned, where they are a

suspect or accused person, is represented by a mandated lawyer in the issuing

Member State, who shall be physically present in the courtroom during the hearing(s)

to which the ERPO relates.

3. Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities have access to all

technical means required for executing an ERPO. This shall include the capacity to

provide:

(a) a secure, confidential and effective channel for persons concerned to

communicate with their lawyer in the issuing State that allows for the effective

exercise of the right of access to a lawyer as provided for in Directives

2013/48/EU and (EU) 2016/800;

(b) the necessary infrastructure to ensure the accessibility of videoconferencing or

other distance communication technology for vulnerable persons.

4. A competent authority of the executing State shall be present during the hearing(s),

where necessary assisted by an interpreter, and shall also be responsible for verifying

the identity of the person concerned and the proper functioning of the relevant

technical infrastructure.

5. The issuing authority and the executing authority shall agree, where necessary, on

measures required to accommodate any special needs of the person concerned.

Where the executing authority becomes aware of vulnerabilities of the person

concerned which have not been noted in the ERPO, it shall inform the issuing

authority accordingly and without undue delay, so that measures for accommodating

any special needs linked thereto can be agreed.

6. At the request of the issuing State or the person concerned, the executing State shall

ensure that the person is assisted by an interpreter, where necessary.

7. Where the person concerned is a victim of crime, the executing authority shall ensure

that that victim receives emotional support during the hearing(s) to which the ERPO

relates in accordance with victims’ individual needs.

8. The person concerned shall be informed in advance of the hearing(s) of the

procedural rights which would accrue to them under the law of the issuing and the

executing State respectively, orally or in writing, in simple and accessible language,

taking into account any particular vulnerability they may have.

9. Without affecting any measures agreed for the protection of persons, on the

conclusion of the hearing(s), the executing authority shall draw up minutes indicating

the date and place of the hearing(s), the identity of the person concerned, the

identities and functions of all other persons in the executing State participating in the

hearing(s), any oaths taken and the technical conditions under which the hearing(s)

EN 58 EN

took place. The document shall be forwarded by the executing authority to the

issuing authority.

Article 43

Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution

1. Without prejudice to Article 1(2) recognition and execution of an ERPO shall be

refused in the executing State where:

(a) the ERPO concerns a suspect or accused person and relates to hearing(s) in

relation to an offence which is covered by amnesty in the executing State and,

where that State had jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own

criminal law;

(b) the execution of the ERPO would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem;

(c) the suspect or accused person concerned by the ERPO may not, owing to their

age, be held criminally responsible, under the law of the executing State, for

the acts to which the ERPO relates.

2. Without prejudice to Article 1(2) recognition or execution of an ERPO may be

refused in the executing State where:

(a) there is an immunity or a privilege under the law of the executing State which

makes it impossible to execute the ERPO or there are rules on determination

and limitation of criminal liability relating to freedom of the press and freedom

of expression in other media, which make it impossible to execute the ERPO,

where the ERPO concerns a suspect or accused person;

(b) the ERPO concerns a suspect or accused person and relates to hearing(s) in

relation to conduct which falls within the jurisdiction of the executing State

under its own criminal law and the criminal prosecution or punishment of the

person concerned, if a suspect or accused person is statute-barred according to

the law of that State;

(c) the ERPO concerns a suspect or accused person and relates to hearing(s) in

relation to a criminal offence which is alleged to have been committed:

(i) outside the territory of the issuing State and wholly or partially on the

territory of the executing State, and the conduct in question is not an

offence in the executing State; or

(ii) outside the territory of the issuing State and the law of the executing

State does not allow prosecution for the same offences when committed

outside its territory;

(d) in exceptional situations, there are substantial grounds to believe, on the basis

of specific and objective evidence, that the execution of the ERPO would, in

the particular circumstances of the case, entail a manifest breach of a relevant

fundamental right as set out in Article 6 TEU and in the Charter, in particular

the right to a fair trial or the right of defence;

(e) the ERPO concerns a suspect or accused person and relates to hearing(s) in

relation to a conduct which does not constitute an offence under the law of the

executing State, unless it concerns an offence listed within the categories of

EN 59 EN

offences set out in Annex IX, as indicated by the issuing authority in the

ERPO, if it is punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or a

detention order for a maximum period of at least three years;

(f) exceptionally, the executing authority considers that the execution of the ERPO

in the particular case would clearly impose a disproportionate burden on the

judicial system of executing State;

(g) the form in Annex VIII is incomplete or manifestly incorrect and has not been

completed following the consultation referred to in paragraph 4.

3. Where the ERPO concerns hearing(s) in relation to an offence in connection with

taxes or duties, customs and exchange, the executing authority shall not refuse

recognition or execution on the ground that the law of the executing State does not

impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain a tax, duty, customs and

exchange regulation of the same kind as the law of the issuing State.

4. In the case referred to in paragraph 2, point (a), and where power to waive the

privilege or immunity lies with an authority of the executing State, the executing

authority shall request that authority to exercise that power h. Where power to waive

the privilege or immunity lies with an authority of another State or international

organisation, it shall be for the issuing authority to request the authority concerned to

exercise that power.

5. In any of the cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, before deciding not to recognise

or execute the ERPO, either wholly or partially, the executing authority shall consult

the issuing authority by any appropriate means, and, where appropriate, shall request

the issuing authority to supply any necessary additional information without delay

and at the latest within 7 days from the date on which the request was received.

Where the executing authority decides that an ERPO can only be recognised

partially, the issuing authority may decide to withdraw the ERPO ex officio or upon

request by the person concerned.

6. Where, after having been duly summoned to participate remotely in the hearing(s)

concerned, the person concerned does not appear at the time and place indicated by

the executing authority, the procedural consequences of such non-appearance shall

be governed by the law of the issuing State, as they would apply in a purely

domestic case where a person summoned to a hearing fails to appear. The issuing

authority shall inform the executing authority, where necessary, of any measures or

arrangements required in those cases, including, where appropriate, the rescheduling

of the hearing or the withdrawal of the ERPO.

Article 44

Time limits for recognition and execution

1. The decision on the recognition and execution shall be taken and the ERPO shall be

executed within the time limits provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5.

2. Where the issuing authority has indicated in the ERPO that, due to procedural

deadlines, the seriousness of the offence or other particularly urgent circumstances, a

shorter deadline for the decision on the recognition and execution than those

provided in this article is necessary, or if the issuing authority has indicated in the

ERPO that the hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates must take place on or by a

EN 60 EN

specific date, the executing authority shall take as full account as possible of that

requirement for a shorter deadline.

3. The executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of

the ERPO as soon as possible and, without affecting paragraph 5, no later than 30

days after the receipt of the ERPO by the competent executing authority.

4. The executing authority shall execute the ERPO in accordance with the practical

arrangements agreed between the issuing authority and the executing authority in

accordance with Article 42.

5. If it is not practicable in a specific case for the executing authority to meet the time

limit set out in paragraph 3 or the specific deadline or date indicated by the issuing

authority in accordance with paragraph 2, the executing authority shall, without

delay, inform the issuing authority by any means, giving the reasons for the delay

and the estimated time necessary for the decision to be taken. In such a case, the time

limit of 30 days laid down in paragraph 3 may be extended by a maximum of 30

days.

Article 45

Impossibility to execute an ERPO

1. The non-execution of an ERPO may be justified where the summons to the

hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates cannot be served to the person concerned

because they cannot be located by the executing authority in the territory of the

executing State, despite reasonable efforts having been made.

2. Before taking a decision on the impossibility to execute an ERPO, the executing

authority shall consult with the issuing authority.

Article 46

Obligation to inform the issuing authority

1. The competent authority in the executing State which receives the ERPO shall,

without delay, and in any case within a week of the reception of an ERPO,

acknowledge reception of the ERPO.

Where a central authority has been designated, the obligation to acknowledge

reception of the ERPO shall apply to the central authority and to the executing

authority which receives the ERPO from the central authority.

In the cases referred to in Article 40(4), the obligation to acknowledge reception of

the ERPO shall apply to the competent authority which initially received the ERPO

and to the executing authority to which the ERPO is finally transmitted.

2. The executing authority shall inform the issuing authority immediately by any

means:

(a) if it is impossible for the executing authority to take a decision on the

recognition or execution due to the fact that the form provided for in Annex

VIII is incomplete or manifestly incorrect;

(b) if the executing authority establishes that, in the specific case, it cannot comply

with formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the issuing authority in

accordance with Article 41.

EN 61 EN

3. The executing authority shall inform the issuing authority without delay:

(a) of any decision taken pursuant to Article 43 and the reasons for that decision.

(b) where, after consultation with the issuing authority in accordance with Article

45(2) the executing authority considers that it is impossible to execute an

ERPO.

4. The issuing authority shall inform the person concerned by an ERPO of any decision

taken by the executing authority pursuant to Article 43 or Article 45.

Article 47

Provisional measures

1. Where an ERPO was issued to facilitate the participation in criminal proceedings of a

suspect or accused persons from the executing State and the proceedings resulted in a

finding of guilt and the imposition of a custodial sentence or detention order, the

issuing State shall inform the executing State of its intention of issuing a EAW,

where applicable.

2. The executing State shall ensure that, where so informed, their competent authorities

are able to take appropriate provisional measures under and in accordance with

national law to ensure that the person concerned remains in its territory, including by

arresting the person, pending the receipt and decision on the recognition and

execution of the EAW.

Article 48

Consultations between the issuing authority and the executing authority

1. Where necessary, the issuing authority and executing authority shall consult each

other, without delay and with a view to facilitating the efficient application of this

Title.

2. Where the issuing authority considers that it would facilitate the effective application

of this Title, it may also consult the executing authority prior to issuing the ERPO, by

any appropriate means. The executing authority shall respond to the request for a

consultation without undue delay.

Article 49

Procedural rights and safeguards

1. When implementing this Directive, Member States shall ensure that the fairness of

the proceedings to which the ERPO relates and the rights of persons concerned by

the ERPO as provided for in Union law, in particular the rights of suspects and

accused persons as set out in Directives 2010/64/EU, 2012/13/EU, 2013/48, (EU)

2016/343, (EU) 2016/800 and (EU) 2016/1919 and the rights of victims of crime as

set out in Directive 2012/29/EU, and the respective law of the issuing or executing

State, in so far as compliant with Union law, as applicable in accordance with Article

42, are respected.

EN 62 EN

Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that such rights can be

exercised effectively remotely from the executing Member State by the person

concerned and in such a manner as to ensure the fairness of the proceedings, both

during the remote hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates as well as prior to and after

such hearing(s), where the exercise of the rights in question is linked to the

hearing(s) concerned.

2. Member States shall ensure that appropriate procedural arrangements are made for

vulnerable suspects, accused persons or victims of crime who would otherwise not be

able to effectively participate remotely in the hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates,

including by applying special protection measures.

Where the ERPO relates to a child, Member States shall ensure that their best

interests are always a primary consideration in any decision concerning them that is

taken in accordance with this Title.

3. Member States shall ensure that where a person has the right to be present at the

hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates and, in accordance with Article 37, requests or

consents to participate in more than one remote hearing, they have the right to revert

to participation in person for the purpose of any subsequent hearing(s) covered by the

ERPO. In such cases the issuing authority shall withdraw the ERPO.

Article 50

Legal remedies

1. Member States shall ensure that a suspect, accused person or victim of crime

concerned by an ERPO can effectively exercise all the remedies available under the

law of the issuing State in the criminal proceedings to which the ERPO relates.

2. A suspect, accused person or victim of crime concerned by an ERPO shall have the

right to an effective remedy in the issuing State against the issuing of an ERPO if

their rights are adversely affected. In particular, the person concerned shall have the

right to challenge a decision taken in accordance with Article 37(2) to issue an ERPO

without their consent.

3. A suspect, accused person or victim of crime concerned by an ERPO shall have the

right to an effective remedy in the executing State against the recognition and against

the execution of an ERPO if their rights are adversely affected by the recognition and

the execution of the ERPO. The exercise of such remedies shall have suspensive

effects on the recognition and execution of the ERPO.

4. The executing authority shall monitor the technical and practical conditions of

execution of the ERPO and shall immediately inform the issuing authority of any

technical or practical issues that may affect the effective exercise of the rights of the

person concerned or the fairness of the proceedings.

Where such issues arise during the hearing(s) to which the ERPO relates, the

executing authority or the competent authority in the executing State that is present

during the hearing shall immediately inform the issuing authority by any appropriate

means. That hearing shall be suspended and the issuing authority and the executing

authority or, where appropriate, the competent authority in the executing State that is

present during the hearing, shall cooperate in taking all appropriate measures to

EN 63 EN

remedy those issues without delay and, where necessary, reschedule and repeat the

hearing concerned.

Where the technical issues persist and cannot be resolved within a reasonable period

of time, the issuing authority may decide to withdraw the ERPO. In such cases, the

hearing(s) shall be rescheduled to allow the person concerned sufficient time to

arrange for their physical presence at the hearing(s) in the issuing State.

5. Member States shall ensure that the time limits for invoking a legal remedy in

accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 do not render the exercise of the right to such a

remedy practically impossible or excessively difficult.

6. The issuing authority and the executing authority shall inform each other about any

legal remedy sought in accordance with paragraph 2 and 3 and the outcome thereof.

 2023/2843/EU art. 11.1

(adapted)

 new

TITLE IV

 COMMON PROVISIONS 

Article 515a

Means of communication

1. With the exception of communication under Article 109(6), Article 1211(4), Article

1312(5) and (6), and Article 16(2), first subparagraph,  Article 22(4), Article

30(6), Article 43(4), Article 44(5), Article 46(2), Article 48(2) and Article 50(3)  ,

official communication under this Directive between the issuing authority and the

executing authority  , between the competent authority of the investigating

Member State and the competent authority of the notified Member State, between the

requesting authority and the requested authority referred to in Article 35, and

between such national competent authorities and Eurojust or the European Public

Prosecutor’s Office,  shall be carried out in accordance with Article 3 of

Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

 new

2. Communication pursuant to Article 10(6), Article 12(4), Article 13(5) and (6),

Article 16(2), first subparagraph, Article 22(4), Article 30(6), point (a) Article 43(4),

Article 44(5), Article 46(2), Article 48(2) and Article 50(3) may take place by the

swiftest and most appropriate means of transmission, including through the

decentralised IT system.

 2014/41/EU

 new

3. 2.Where a Member State has designated a central authority or authorities, paragraphs

1  and 2  shall also apply to official communication with the central authority or

authorities of another Member State.

EN 64 EN

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

Article 52 7

 Designation of central authorities 

3. Without prejudice to Article 2(d), eEach Member State may designate a central authority

or, where its legal system so provides, more than one central authority, to assist the competent

authorities  under this Directive  . A Member State may, if  where  necessary due

to the organisation of its internal judicial system, make its central authority(ies) responsible

for the administrative transmission and receipt of  the following  :

(a) EIOs,

 new

(b) notifications referred to in Article 30(6), point (a), and Articles 33 and 34,

(c) requests for consent to use information previously exchanged as evidence,

(d) ERPO,

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

(e) as well as for other official correspondence relating to EIOs  to points (a) to

(d) .

 new

Article 53

Cooperation with Eurojust and the European Judicial Network

The competent authorities under this Directive may, at any stage of the procedure under this

Directive, request the assistance of Eurojust or the European Judicial Network in accordance

with their respective competences.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

Article 5421

Costs

1. Unless otherwise provided in this Directive, the executing State shall bear all costs

undertaken on the territory of the executing State which are related to the execution

of an EIO  or an ERPO  .

2. Where the executing authority considers that the costs for the execution of the EIO

 or an ERPO  may be deemed exceptionally high, it may consult with the issuing

authority on whether and how the costs could be shared or the EIO  or an

ERPO modified.

EN 65 EN

The executing authority shall inform the issuing authority in advance of the detailed

specifications of the part of the costs deemed exceptionally high.

3. In exceptional situations where no agreement can be reached with regard to the costs

referred to in paragraph 2, the issuing authority may decide to:

(a) withdraw the EIO  or an ERPO in whole or in part; or

(b) keep the EIO  or an ERPO and bear the part of the costs deemed

exceptionally high.

 new

Article 55

Statistics

1. Member States shall collect comprehensive statistics to allow the Commission to

monitor the application of this Directive. The competent authorities of the Member

States shall maintain those statistics and transmit them to the Commission on an

annual basis. The competent authorities of the Member States may process personal

data necessary for the production of those statistics. The statistics transmitted to the

Commission shall be limited to aggregated data and shall not contain personal data.

2. The statistics referred to in paragraph 1 shall include all of the following:

(a) the number of EIO and notifications under Article 30(6), point (a), transmitted

by the issuing State;

(b) the number of executed EIO by the executing State;

(c) the number of non-recognised and non-executed EIO, either in whole or in

part, including the grounds for non-recognition/ non-execution, including cases

where it is not possible to provide assistance pursuant to Article 11(5) and

cases where the EIO is returned pursuant to Article 10(3), by the executing

State;

(d) the number of cases in which legal remedies were sought against the issuing or

the execution of the EIO and the number of successfully challenged decisions;

(e) the length of time taken to transmit evidence or the length of time taken to

transmit information on the decision on non-recognition or non-execution of an

EIO;

(f) the number of notifications under Articles 33 and 34 transmitted by the

competent authority of the investigating Member State, and the number of

objections transmitted by the notified Member State, in response to such

notifications;

(g) the number of ERPO transmitted by the issuing State, including information on

the stage of the proceedings to which they related and whether they concerned

a suspect, an accused person or a victim of crime;

(h) the number of ERPO that were recognised and executed;

(i) the number of ERPO the recognition or execution of which was refused, either

in whole or in part, including information on the ground for non-recognition or

non-execution relied upon, the stage of the proceedings to which the ERPO

EN 66 EN

related and whether they concerned a suspect, an accused person or a victim of

crime;

(j) the number of cases in which legal remedies were sought against the issuing or

the execution of the ERPO, specifying whether each case was brought by a

suspect, an accused person or a victim, and the number of decisions that were

successfully challenged.

3. The reference implementation software referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EU)

2023/2844 and, where equipped to do so, the national back-end systems referred to in

Article 12(1) of that Regulation, shall programmatically collect the data referred to in

paragraph 2 of this Article, and transmit them to the Commission on an annual basis.

4. The statistics referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be collected in

accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article from the date referred to in Article 60(3).

Those statistics shall be transmitted for the first time one year after that date.

5. Until the date referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, this Article shall not affect

the application of Article 16(2), points (c) and (d), of Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 in

respect of the following statistics, to the extent that they correspond to the

information referred to in those points:

(a) the number of EIO transmitted by the issuing State through the decentralised

IT system, as referred to in paragraph 2, point (a), of this Article;

(b) the length of time needed to transmit evidence or the length of time taken to

transmit information on the decision on non-recognition or non-execution of an

EIO referred to in paragraph 2, point (e), of this Article;

(c) the number of notifications under Article 33 transmitted by the competent

authority of the investigating Member State referred to in paragraph 2, point

(f), of this Article.

6. From the date referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, the collection and

transmission of the statistics referred to in paragraph 2, points (a), (e) and (f), of this

Article shall constitute an equivalent notification procedure under Article 16(2) of

Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 for the information referred to in Article 16(2), points (c)

and (d), of that Regulation.

Article 56

Amendments to the standard forms

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 57 to

amend Annexes I to IX by updating or making technical changes to the standard forms

contained in those Annexes.

Article 57

Exercise of the delegation

1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the

conditions laid down in this Article.

EN 67 EN

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 56 shall be conferred on the

Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [date of entry into force of this

Directive].

3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 56 may be revoked at any time by the

European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the

delegation of power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following

the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a

later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts

already in force.

4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by

each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the

Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making.

5. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to

the European Parliament and to the Council.

6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 56 shall enter into force only if no

objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council

within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament

and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and

the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That

period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament

or of the Council.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

TITLE V

 TRANSITIONAL AND  FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 5833

Notifications

1. By  [2 years after entry into force]  22 May 2017 each Member State shall

notify the Commission of the following:

(a) the authority or authorities which, in accordance with its national law, are

competent according to  in accordance with  Article 2(c)  2(1), points

(c)  and (d), when  that  Member State is the issuing State or the

executing State  within the meaning of those provisions  ;

 new

(b) the authority or authorities which, in accordance with its national law, are

competent in accordance with Articles 33 and 34 when that Member State is

the investigating Member State or the notified Member State;

EN 68 EN

(c) the authority or authorities designated under Article 30(6), point (a), for

the transmission and receipt of urgent notifications in accordance with that

Article, when this Member State is the issuing State or the executing State;

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

(db) the languages accepted for an EIO as referred to in Article 65(2)  and Article

38(3)  ;

(ec) the information regarding the designated central authority or authorities, if

 where  the Member State wishes to make use of the possibility under

Article 7(3)52,  clarifying their responsibilities  .  That  This

information shall be binding upon the authorities of the issuing State.

2. Each Member State may also provide the Commission the list of necessary

documents it would require under Article 22(4).

3. Member States shall inform the Commission of any subsequent changes to the

information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

4. The Commission shall make the information received under this Article available to

all the Member States and to the  European Judicial Network  EJN. The

 European Judicial Network  EJN shall make the information available on the

website referred to in Article 9 of the Council Decision 2008/976/JHA (18).

 new

5. Notifications transmitted under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 33 of the Directive

2014/41/EU shall remain valid for the purposes of this Directive unless replaced or

updated in accordance with this Article.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

Article 5934

Relations to other legal instruments, agreements and arrangements

1. Without prejudice to  affecting  their application between Member States and

third States and their temporary application by virtue of Article  60  35, this

Directive replaces, as from 22 May 2017, the corresponding provisions of the

following conventions applicable between the Member States bound by this

Directive  that correspond to provisions of this Directive (‘corresponding

provisions’)  :

(a) European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of the Council

of Europe of 20 April 1959, as well as its two  three  additional

protocols, and the bilateral agreements concluded pursuant to Article 26

thereof;

(b) Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement;

EN 69 EN

(c) Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the

Member States of the European Union and its protocol.;

 new

(d) Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe of 23 November 2001 and

its additional protocols;

(e) United Nations Convention against Cybercrime of 24 December 2024;

(f) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised crime;

(g) United Nations Convention against Corruption;

(h) United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances.

2. The corresponding provisions of the conventions referred to in paragraph 1, points

(a), (b) and (c), shall be replaced as from 22 May 2017. The corresponding

provisions of the Conventions referred to in paragraph 1, points (d), (e), (f), (g), and

(h) shall be replaced as from [two years after entry into force].

3. Where an additional protocol to a Convention referred to in paragraph 1, point (a), is

adopted after 22 May 2017, the corresponding provisions of that protocol shall be

replaced by the corresponding provisions of this Directive from [two years after

entry into force].

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

2. Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA is hereby replaced for the Member States bound

by this Directive. Provisions of Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA are replaced for

Member States bound by this Directive as regards freezing of evidence.

For the Member States bound by this Directive, references to Framework

Decision 2008/978/JHA and, as regards freezing of evidence, to Framework

Decision 2003/577/JHA, shall be construed as references to this Directive.

4.3. In addition to this Directive, Member States may conclude or continue to apply

bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements with other Member States

after  [two years after entry into force]  22 May 2017 only insofar as these

 those  make it possible to further strengthen the aims of this Directive and

contribute to simplifying or further facilitating the procedures for gathering evidence

 or further facilitate the remote participation of suspects, accused persons or

victims of crime in criminal court hearings from another Member State  and

provided that the level of safeguards set out in this Directive is respected.

54. Member States shall notify to the Commission by  [two years after entry into

force]  22 May 2017 the existing agreements and arrangements referred to in

paragraph 3 which they wish to continue to apply. Member States shall also notify

the Commission within three months of the signing of any new agreement or

arrangement referred to in paragraph 34.

EN 70 EN

 new

6. Notifications transmitted under Article 34(4) of Directive 2014/41/EU shall remain

valid for the purposes of this Directive unless replaced or updated in accordance with

paragraph 5.

7. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to the Convention implementing the

Schengen Agreement in so far as that Convention governs cross-border surveillance

carried out for operational police cooperation purposes.

Article 60

Transitional provisions

1. This Directive shall apply to procedures referred to in Article 1(1) initiated from [two

years after entry into force].

2. However, Article 51, insofar as it concerns communications relating to procedures

established under Article 21, Article 30(6), and Articles 34 and 35 and under Title

III, shall apply to procedures initiated from the date set by the Commission.

3. The Commission shall set the date referred to in the second paragraph in a decision

after it adopted an implementing act under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU)

2023/2844, which ensures that the decentralised IT system enables the application of

the procedures introduced by this Directive. That date shall be the first day of the

month following the period of two years from the date of entry into force of that

implementing act.

4. EIO and notifications of the Member State, where the subject of the interception is

located from which no technical assistance is needed, received before [two years

after entry into force] shall continue to be governed by Directive 2014/41/EU.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

Article 35

Transitional provisions

1. Mutual assistance requests received before 22 May 2017 shall continue to be

governed by existing instruments relating to mutual assistance in criminal matters.

Decisions to freeze evidence by virtue of Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA and

received before 22 May 2017 shall also be governed by that Framework Decision.

2. Article 8(1) is applicable mutatis mutandis to the EIO following a decision of

freezing taken under Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA.

Article 6136

Transposition

EN 71 EN

1. Member States shall  bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative

provisions  take the necessary measures to comply with this Directive by 22 May

2017  Articles 1 and 2, Article 3(1), Article 4, Article 6(1), points (f) and (g),

Article 6(4), Article 8(1) and 8(2), Article 9(3), Article 10(3), Article 13,

Article 14(5), Article 17(1) and (5), Article 21, Article 24(1), (2) and (5), point (a),

Article 28(1), points (c) and (d), Article 28(2), Article 30, Article 31(7), Articles 33

to 50, Articles 51 to 55, Articles 58 to 60 and Annexes I to IX by [2 years after entry

into force]  .  They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures

to the Commission. 

 They shall apply those measures from [2 years after entry into force]. 

2. When Member States adopt these  those  measures, they shall contain a

reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion

of their official publication.  They shall also include a statement that references in

existing laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the Directive repealed by

this Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive. Member States shall

determine how such reference is to be made and how that statement is to be

formulated.  The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by

Member States.

3. By 22 May 2017, Member States shall transmit to the Commission the text of the

provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under

this Directive.

 new

3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main measures

of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

Article37

Report on the application

No later than five years after 21 May 2014, the Commission shall present to the European

Parliament and the Council a report on the application of this Directive, on the basis of both

qualitative and quantitative information, including in particular, the evaluation of its impact

on the cooperation in criminal matters and the protection of individuals, as well as the

execution of the provisions on the interception of telecommunications in light of technical

developments. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by proposals for amendments to

this Directive.

 new

Article 62

Report on the application

No later than five years after the date of entry into force of the implementing acts referred to

in Article 60(3), the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, to the

EN 72 EN

Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this

Directive, supported by information supplied by the Member States in accordance with

Article 55 and collected by the Commission.

Article 63

Repeal

Directive 2014/41/EU is repealed with effect from [two years minus one day after entry into

force of this Directive], without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to

the time-limit for the transposition into of the Directive set out in Part B of Annex X.

References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and

shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex XI.

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

Article 6438

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following  that of  its

publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

 2014/41/EU

Article 6539

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.

Done at Brussels….

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 23.6.2026

COM(2026) 313 final

ANNEXES 1 to 12

ANNEXES

to the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters and the European

Remote Participation Order (recast)

EN 1 EN

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

ANNEX AI

EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER (EIO)

This EIO has been issued by a competent authority. The issuing authority certifies that the

issuing of this EIO is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of the proceedings specified

within it taking into account the rights of the suspect or accused person and that the

investigative measures requested could have been ordered under the same conditions in a

similar domestic case. I request that the investigative measure or measures specified below be

carried out taking due account of the confidentiality of the investigation and that the evidence

obtained as a result of the execution of the EIO be transferred.

SECTION A

Issuing State:................................................................................................................................

Executing State: ...........................................................................................................................

SECTION B: Urgency

Please indicate if there is any urgency due to

 Evidence being concealed or destroyed

 Imminent trial date

  Risk of compromising the gathering of evidence 

 Any other reason

Please specify below:

Time limits for execution of the EIO are laid down in Directive 2014/41/EU[recast Directive

YEAR/NUMBER]. However, if a shorter or specific time limit is necessary, please provide the date

and explain the reason for this:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

EN 2 EN

SECTION C: Investigative measure(s) to be carried out

Describe the assistance/investigative measure(s) required AND indicate, if applicable, if it is one

of the following investigative measures:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

 Obtaining information or evidence which is already in the possession of the executing authority

 Obtaining information contained in databases held by police or judicial authorities

 Hearing  (if a hearing is requested, include in the description of the measure the list of

questions to be asked to the person concerned) 

□ witness

□ expert

□ suspected

□ or accused person

□ victim

□ third party

 Identification of persons holding a subscription of a specified phone number or IP address

  Search and seizure 

 Temporary transfer of a person held in custody to the issuing State

 Temporary transfer of a person held in custody to the executing State

 Hearing by videoconference or other audiovisual transmission  distance communication

technology 

□ witness

□ expert

□ suspected

□ or accused person

EN 3 EN

 Hearing by telephone conference

□ witness

□ expert

 Information on bank and other financial accounts

 Information on banking and other financial operations

 Investigative measure implying the gathering of evidence in real time, continuously and over a

certain period of time

□ monitoring of banking or other financial operations

□ controlled deliveries

 □ surveillance on the territory of the executing State 

 □ the installation and use of a technical device enabling the collection of

location, audio or visual data on the territory of the executing State 

□ other

 Covert investigation

  Cross-border surveillance 

 Interception of telecommunications

 Provisional measure(s) to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal

of an item that may be used as evidence

  Service of procedural documents necessary for the execution of an investigative measure

requested in the EIO 

EN 4 EN

SECTION GD: Grounds for issuing the EIO

1. Summary of the facts

Set out the reasons why the EIO is issued, including a summary of the underlying facts, a

description of offences charged or under investigation, the stage the investigation has reached, the

reasons for any risk factors and any other relevant information.

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

 Stage of investigation/proceedings:

☐ investigation

☐ prosecution

☐ trial

☐ other, specify: ..................................................................................................................

Please indicate reasons why the requested measure(s)* are relevant for the purposes of the

criminal proceedings: ..................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

* Applicable where one or more of the following investigative measures are requested: information on

bank and other financial accounts or on banking and other financial operations; monitoring of banking or

other financial operations carried out through one or more specified accounts; controlled deliveries;

surveillance on the teritory of the executing State; the installation and use of a technical device enabling the

collection of location, audio or visual data on the territory of the executing State; other investigative

measures implying the gathering of evidence in real time, continuously and over a certain period of time;

covert investigations; cross-border surveillance; or the interception of telecommunications. 

2. Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) for which the EIO is issued and the applicable

statutory provision/code:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

3. Is the offence for which the EIO is issued punishable in the issuing State by a custodial

sentence or detention order of a maximum of at least three years as defined by the law of the

issuing State and included in the list of offences set out below? (please tick the relevant box)

□ participation in a criminal organisation

□ terrorism

□ trafficking in human beings

□ sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

□ illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

□ illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives

□ corruption

□ fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Union within the

meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European

Communities’ financial interests

□ laundering of the proceeds of crime

□ counterfeiting currency, including of the euro

EN 5 EN

□ computer-related crime

EN 6 EN

□ environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in

endangered plant species and varieties

□ facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence

□ murder, grievous bodily injury

□ illicit trade in human organs and tissue

□ kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking

□ racism and xenophobia

□ organised or armed robbery

□ illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art

□ swindling

□ racketeering and extortion

□ counterfeiting and piracy of products

□ forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein

□ forgery of means of payment

□ illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters

□ illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials

□ trafficking in stolen vehicles

□ rape

□ arson

□ crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

□ unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships

□ sabotage

 □ violation of Union restrictive measures 

EN 7 EN

SECTION DE: Relation to an earlier EIO  or to other requests, orders or notifications 

(i) Indicate whether this EIO supplements an earlier EIO. If applicable, provide information

relevant to identify the previous EIO (the date of issue of the EIO, the authority to which it was

transmitted and, if available, the date of transmission of the EIO, and reference numbers given by

the issuing and executing authorities):

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

 (ii) If relevant, indicate whether this EIO relates to another EIO, a other judicial cooperation

request, a notification or an order based on the principle of mutual recognition transmitted to the

issuing State in the same case. If applicable, provide information relevant to identify the related

communication (the date of issue and transmission, the authority to which it was transmitted, and

reference numbers given by the respective authorities):  .........................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

(iii) If relevant please indicate if an EIO , a judicial cooperation request, a notification or an

order based on the principle of mutual recognition  has already been addressed to another

Member State in the same case.  If applicable, indicate the date of issue and transmission and

the authority to which it was transmitted  :

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

EN 8 EN

SECTION EF: Identity of the person concerned

1. State all information, as far as known, regarding the identity of the (i) natural or (ii) legal

person(s) concerned by the investigative measure (if more than one person is concerned, please

provide the information for each person):

(i) In the case of natural person(s)

Name: ...........................................................................................................................................

First name(s): ................................................................................................................................

Other relevant name(s), if applicable: ..........................................................................................

Aliases, if applicable: ...................................................................................................................

Sex: ...............................................................................................................................................

Nationality: ...................................................................................................................................

Identity number or social security number: ..................................................................................

Type and number of the identity document(s) (ID card, passport), if available:

......................................................................................................................................................

Date of birth: ................................................................................................................................

Place of birth: ...............................................................................................................................

Residence and/or known address; if address not known, state the last known address:

......................................................................................................................................................

 Other contact details (email, phone No): ……………………………………..………………. 

Language(s) which the person understands:

......................................................................................................................................................

 Please describe the position the concerned person currently holds in the proceedings: 

 □ suspect 

 □ accused person 

 □ victim 

 □ witness 

 □ expert 

 □ third party 

 □ other (please specify)  ...................................................................................................

EN 9 EN

(ii) In the case of legal person(s)

Name: ...........................................................................................................................................

Form of legal person: ...................................................................................................................

Shortened name, commonly used name or trading name, if applicable:

......................................................................................................................................................

Registered seat: ............................................................................................................................

Registration number: ....................................................................................................................

Address of the legal person: .........................................................................................................

 Other contact details (email, phone No): …………………………………………………. 

Name of the legal person’s representative: ..................................................................................

Please describe the position the concerned person currently holds in the proceedings:

□ suspected

□ or accused person

□ victim

□ witness

□ expert

□ third party

□ other (please specify) ........................................................................................................

2. If different from the address above, please give the location where investigative measure is

to be carried out:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

3. Provide any other information that will assist with the execution of the EIO:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

EN 10 EN

SECTION FG: Type of proceedings for which the EIO is issued:

□ (a) with respect to criminal proceedings brought by, or that may be brought before, a

judicial authority in respect of a criminal offence under the national law of the issuing

State; or

□ (b) proceedings brought by administrative authorities in respect of acts which are

punishable under the national law of the issuing State by virtue of being infringements

of the rules of law, and where the decision may give rise to proceedings before a court

having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters; or

□ (c) proceedings brought by judicial authorities in respect of acts which are punishable

under the national law of the issuing State by virtue of being infringements of the rules

of law, and where the decision may give rise to proceedings before a court having

jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters;

□ (d) in connection with proceedings referred to in points (a), (b), and (c) which relate to

offences or infringements for which a legal person may be held liable or punished in

the issuing State.

EN 11 EN

SECTION G: Grounds for issuing the EIO

1. Summary of the facts

Set out the reasons why the EIO is issued, including a summary of the underlying facts, a

description of offences charged or under investigation, the stage the investigation has reached, the

reasons for any risk factors and any other relevant information.

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

2. Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) for which the EIO is issued and the

applicable statutory provision/code:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

3. Is the offence for which the EIO is issued punishable in the issuing State by a custodial

sentence or detention order of a maximum of at least three years as defined by the law of the

issuing State and included in the list of offences set out below? (please tick the relevant box)

□ participation in a criminal organisation

□ terrorism

□ trafficking in human beings

□ sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

□ illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

□ illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives

□ corruption

□ fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Union within the

meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European

Communities’ financial interests

□ laundering of the proceeds of crime

□ counterfeiting currency, including of the euro

□ computer-related crime

EN 12 EN

□ environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in

endangered plant species and varieties

□ facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence

□ murder, grievous bodily injury

□ illicit trade in human organs and tissue

□ kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking

□ racism and xenophobia

□ organised or armed robbery

□ illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art

□ swindling

□ racketeering and extortion

□ counterfeiting and piracy of products

□ forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein

□ forgery of means of payment

□ illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters

□ illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials

□ trafficking in stolen vehicles

□ rape

□ arson

□ crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

□ unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships

□ sabotage

EN 13 EN

SECTION H: Additional requirements for certain measures

Fill out the sections relevant to the investigative measure(s) requested:

SECTION H1: Transfer of a person held in custody

(1) If a temporary transfer to the issuing State of a person held in custody for the purpose of

the investigation is requested, please indicate whether the person consented to this measure:

 Yes  No  I request that the person’s consent is sought

(2) If a temporary transfer to the executing State of a person held in custody for the purpose of

investigation is requested, please indicate whether the person consented to this measure:

 Yes  No

SECTION H2: Video or telephone conference or other audiovisual transmission  distance

communication technology 

If hearing by videoconference or telephone conference or other audiovisual transmission

 distance communication technology  is requested:

Please indicate the name of the authority that will conduct the hearing (contact details/language):

......................................................................................................................................................

 Proposed date(s) (DD/MM/YYYY): ………………………………………………………….

Start time of conference (hh:mm:ss): …………………………………………….………

Time Zone: ………………………………………………………………………….............

Approximate length of hearing: ……………………………………………………………….

Technical details:

Site name: …………………………………………………………………………………….

Communication system:……………………………………………………………………...

Contacts of technician and language spoken: ………………………………………………...

Pre-test date and time: …………………………………………………………………………..

Contact details for pre-test operator if known: …………………………………………………

Language and interpretation arrangements: …………………………………………………..

Any other requirements (If so please specify): …………………………………………………

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Please specify if the suspect or accused person concerned has given their consent:

□ Yes

□ No

□ I request that the person’s consent is sought before this request proceeds 

Please indicate reasons for requesting this measure:

......................................................................................................................................................

□ (a) hearing by videoconference or other audiovisual transmission :

EN 14 EN

□ the suspected or accused person has given his/her consent

□ (b) hearing by telephone conference

SECTION H3: Provisional measures

If a provisional measure to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of

an item that may be used as evidence, is requested, please indicate whether:

□ the item is to be transferred to the issuing State

□ the item is to remain in the executing State; please indicate an estimated date:

for lifting of provisional measure: ......................................................................................

for the submission of a subsequent request concerning the item: .......................................

EN 15 EN

SECTION H4: Information on bank and other financial accounts

(1) If information on bank accounts or other financial accounts that the person holds or

controls is requested, please indicate, for each of them, the reasons why you consider the measure

relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings and on what grounds you presume that banks

in the executing State hold the account

 Please specify which information is being sought: 

□ information on bank accounts that the person holds or in respect of which he or she has the

power of attorney

□ information on other financial accounts that the person holds or in respect of which he or she

has the power of attorney

 □ Information on banking operations:

□ Bank Statements

□ Account opening documentation

□ Power of Attorney or additional name on account

□ Other (If so please specify): ……………………………………………………....

□ Information on other financial operations:

□ Account Statements

□ Account opening documentation

□ Power of Attorney or additional name on account

□ Other (If so please specify): ……………………………………………………....

If available, please provide:

Name of Account Holder: ………………………………………………………………………

Name of bank/financial institution: ……………………………………………………………

IBAN or Account Number and Sort Code: …………………………………………….……..

Time Scale for transactions: ……………………………………………………………………

☐ Other (If so, please specify): ……………………………………………………………….. 

(2) If information on banking operations or other financial operations is requested, please

indicate, for each of them, the reasons why you consider the measure relevant for the purpose of

the criminal proceedings:

□ information on banking operations

□ information on other financial operations

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Indicate the relevant period of time and the related accounts:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

EN 16 EN

SECTION H5: Investigative measures implying the gathering of evidence in real time,

continuously and over a certain period of time

If such investigative measure is requested please indicate the reasons why you consider the

requested information relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

SECTION H6: Covert investigations

If covert investigation is requested please indicate the reasons why you consider the investigative

measure likely to be relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

SECTION H75: Interception of telecommunications

(1) If interception of telecommunications is requested please indicate the reasons why you

consider the investigative measure relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings:

(12) Please provide following information:

(a) information for the purpose of identifying the subject of the interception:

......................................................................................................................................................

(b) the desired duration of the interception:

......................................................................................................................................................

(c) technical data (in particular the target identifier — such as mobile telephone

 number,  landline  fixed-line  telephone  number  , email address, internet

connection  access identifier or other identifier relating to an electronic communications

service or electronic communications network  ), to ensure that the EIO can be executed:

......................................................................................................................................................

(23) Please indicate your preference concerning the method of execution:

 immediate transmission

 recording and subsequent transmission

Please indicate if you also require transcription, decoding or decrypting of the intercepted

material*:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

* Please be aware that the costs of any transcription, decoding or decrypting must be met by

the issuing State.

EN 17 EN

SECTION I: Formalities and procedures requested for the execution,  other important

information and list of enclosures 

1. Tick and complete, if applicable It is requested that the executing authority comply

with the following formalities and procedures  (fill in if applicable): 

......................................................................................................................................................

2. Tick and complete, if applicable It is requested that one or several officials of the

issuing State assist in the execution of the EIO in support of the competent authorities of the

executing State  (fill in if applicable):  .

Contact details of the officials:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Languages that may be used for communication: ........................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

 3. Any other information which the issuing authority considers important:  ...................

......................................................................................................................................................

 4. List of enclosures:  ...................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

EN 18 EN

SECTION J: Legal remedies

1. Please indicate if a legal remedy has already been sought against the issuing of an EIO,

and if so please provide further details (description of the legal remedy, including necessary steps

to take and deadlines):

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

 2. . Where a legal remedy has not been sought against the issuing of an EIO, please indicate

whether and what legal remedies are available against the issuing of an EIO: ..........................

.................................................................................................................................................. 

23. Authority in the issuing State which can supply further information on procedures for seeking

legal remedies in the issuing State and on whether legal assistance and interpretation and

translation is available:

Name: ...........................................................................................................................................

Contact person (if applicable): .....................................................................................................

Address: ........................................................................................................................................

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code) ......................................................................................

E-mail: ..........................................................................................................................................

EN 19 EN

SECTION K: Details of the authority which issued the EIO

Tick the type of authority which issued the EIO:

□ judicial authority

 □ (a) judge or court 

 □ (b) investigating judge 

 □ *(c) public prosecutor 

□ *(d) any other competent authority as defined by the law of the issuing State

*  Where applicable,  pPlease also complete section (L)

 * Please indicate whether: 

 □ the requested investigative measure(s) has been authorised by a judge, a court or

an investigating judge; specify the date and reference number of the authorising decision: 

............................................................................................................................................

 □ authorisation by a judge, a court or an investigating judge for the requested

investigative measure is not required under the national law of the issuing State 

Name of authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

Name of representative/contact point:

......................................................................................................................................................

File No: .........................................................................................................................................

Address: ........................................................................................................................................

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code) ......................................................................................

Fax No: (country code) (area/city code).......................................................................................

E-mail: ..........................................................................................................................................

Languages in which it is possible to communicate with the issuing authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

If different from above, the contact details of the person(s) to contact for additional information or

to make practical arrangements for the transfer of evidence:

Name/Title/Organisation: .............................................................................................................

Address: ........................................................................................................................................

E-mail/Contact Phone No: ...........................................................................................................

 Electronic  sSignature of the issuing authority and/or its representative certifying the

content of the EIO as accurate and correct:

Name: ...........................................................................................................................................

Post held (title/grade): ..................................................................................................................

Date: .............................................................................................................................................

Official stamp (if available):

EN 20 EN

SECTION L Details of the judicial authority which validated the EIO

Please indicate the type of judicial authority which has validated this EIO:

□ (a) judge or court

□ (b) investigating judge

□ (c) public prosecutor

Official name of the validating authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

Name of its representative:

......................................................................................................................................................

Post held (title/grade):

......................................................................................................................................................

File no: ..........................................................................................................................................

Address: ........................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code) ......................................................................................

Fax No: (country code) (area/city code).......................................................................................

E-mail: ..........................................................................................................................................

Languages in which it is possible to communicate with the validating authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

Please indicate if the main contact point for the executing authority should be the:

□ issuing authority

□ validating authority

 Electronic  sSignature and details of the validating authority

Name: ...........................................................................................................................................

Post held (title/grade): ..................................................................................................................

Date: .............................................................................................................................................

Official stamp (if available):

EN 21 EN

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

ANNEX IIB

CONFIRMATION OF THE RECEIPT OF AN EIO

This form has to be completed by the authority of the executing State which received the EIO

referred to below.

(A) THE EIO CONCERNED

Authority which issued the EIO:

......................................................................................................................................................

File reference: ...............................................................................................................................

Date of issuing: .............................................................................................................................

Date of receipt: .............................................................................................................................

(B) THE AUTHORITY WHICH RECEIVED THE EIO(1)

Official name of the competent authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

Name of its representative:

......................................................................................................................................................

Post held (title/grade):

......................................................................................................................................................

Address:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code) ......................................................................................

Fax No: (country code) (area/city code).......................................................................................

E-mail: ..........................................................................................................................................

File reference: ...............................................................................................................................

Languages in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

1 This section is to be completed by each authority which received the EIO. This obligation falls upon the

authority competent to recognise and execute the EIO and, where applicable, upon the central authority

or the authority which transmitted the EIO to the competent authority.

EN 22 EN

(C) (WHERE APPLICABLE) THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO WHOM THE EIO IS

TRANSMITTED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER (B)

Official name of the authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

Name of its representative:

......................................................................................................................................................

Post held (title/grade):

......................................................................................................................................................

Address:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code) ......................................................................................

Fax No: (country code) (area/city code).......................................................................................

E-mail: ..........................................................................................................................................

Date of transmission: ....................................................................................................................

File reference: ...............................................................................................................................

Language(s) that may be used for communication:

......................................................................................................................................................

(D) ANY OTHER INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT FOR THE ISSUING

AUTHORITY:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

(E)  ELECTRONIC  SIGNATURE AND DATE

 Electronic  sSignature:

Date: .............................................................................................................................................

Official stamp (if available):

EN 23 EN

 2014/41/EU (adapted)

 new

ANNEX IIIC

NOTIFICATION

This form is used in order to notify a Member State about the interception of

telecommunication that will be, is or has been carried out on its territory without its technical

assistance. I hereby inform … (notified Member State) of the interception.

(A)2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

Official name of the competent authority of  investigating  intercepting Member State:

......................................................................................................................................................

Name of its representative:

......................................................................................................................................................

Post held (title/grade):

......................................................................................................................................................

Address:

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code) ......................................................................................

Fax No: (country code) (area/city code).......................................................................................

E-mail: ..........................................................................................................................................

File reference: ...............................................................................................................................

Date of issuing: .............................................................................................................................

Languages in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

......................................................................................................................................................

2 The authority which is referred to here is the one which should be contacted in further correspondence

with the investigating Member State.

EN 24 EN

(B) INFORMATION CONCERNING THE INTERCEPTION

(I) Information about state of play: This notification takes place (please tick):

□ prior to the interception

□ during the interception

□ after the interception

(II) The (anticipated) duration of the interception (as known to the issuing  competent 

authority):

……………………………………, starting from…………………………………………...

(III) Target of the interception: (telephone number, IP number or e-mail)

......................................................................................................................................................

(IV) Identity of the persons concerned

State all information, as far as they are known, regarding the identity of the (i) natural or (ii)

legal person(s) against whom the proceedings are/may be/is taking place:

(i) In the case of natural person(s)

Name: ........................................................................................................................

First name(s): .............................................................................................................

Other relevant name(s), if applicable: .......................................................................

Aliases, if applicable: ................................................................................................

Sex: ............................................................................................................................

Nationality: ................................................................................................................

Identity number or social security number: ...............................................................

Date of birth: .............................................................................................................

Place of birth: ............................................................................................................

Residence and/or known address; if address not known, state the last known

address:

...................................................................................................................................

Language(s) which the person understands:

...................................................................................................................................

EN 25 EN

(ii) In the case of legal person(s)

Name: ........................................................................................................................

Form of legal person: ................................................................................................

Shortened name, commonly used name or trading name, if applicable:

...................................................................................................................................

Registered seat ...........................................................................................................

Registration number: .................................................................................................

Address of the legal person: ......................................................................................

Name and contact details of the representative of the legal person: .........................

(V) Information regarding the purpose of this interception:

State all information necessary, including a description of the case, legal classification of the

offence(s) and the applicable statutory provision/code, in order to enable the notified authority

to assess the following:

□ whether the interception would be authorised in a similar domestic case; and

whether the material obtained can be used in legal proceedings

□ where the interception has already occurred, whether that material can be used in

legal proceedings

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

Please note that any objection to the interception or the use of already intercepted material,

 as well as the indication of any conditions limiting the use of that material  must be made

no later than 96 hours after the reception of this notification.

EN 26 EN

(C)  ELECTRONIC  SIGNATURE AND DATE

 Electronic  Ssignature:

Date: .............................................................................................................................................

Official stamp (if available):

EN 27 EN

 new

ANNEX IV

REQUEST FOR CONSENT FOR SUBSEQUENT USE OR ONWARD TRANSFER OF

INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE

This request has been issued by a competent authority. This request seeks the consent of the

requested authority for the use of information or evidence which has been obtained as a result

of execution of an EIO or in accordance with Articles 33 and 34 of the Directive [recast

Directive YEAR/NUMBER] for purposes other than those for which it was gathered or its

onward transfer to another Member State, a third country or an international organisation.

The requesting authority confirms that the processing of personal data, which this request

concerns, complies with the applicable data protection rules as set out in the Directive (EU)

2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 or, where applicable, the Regulation

(EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council4, including, where applicable,

the conditions on transfers of personal data to a third country or international organisation.

(A) Requesting State and requested State

Requesting State:

Requested State:

Name of requested authority:

(B) Identification of the EIO or notification concerned

(I) This request concerns the information or evidence obtained through the execution of:

☐ an European Investigation Order (EIO);

☐ interception carried out without the technical assistance of the requested State and in

respect of which a notification in accordance with Article 33 of the Directive

[recast Directive YEAR/NUMBER] was issued; or

☐ an investigative measure entailing the use of a technical recording device carried out

without the technical assistance of the requested State and in respect of which a

notification in accordance with Article 34 of the Directive [recast Directive

YEAR/NUMBER] was issued.

(II) Details about the EIO/notification concerned

Authority which issued the EIO/notification:

File number:

3 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for

the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the

execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council

Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89). 4 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of

such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016,

p. 1).

EN 28 EN

Date of issue:

Date of transmission:

Authority which executed the EIO or to which the notification was transmitted:

File number:

(III) Original purpose limitation

Purpose for which the information or evidence was originally collected under the EIO or a

notification:

Any conditions attached by executing or notified authority:

(C) Description of information or evidence which this request concerns

Description of information or evidence:

Summary description of content:

Date range covered (if applicable):

Method of collection (if relevant):

(D) Requested subsequent use (if applicable)

(I) Subsequent use of information and evidence is requested for the purpose of:

☐ Other criminal proceedings;

☐ Preventing an immediate and serious threat to public security;

☐ Administrative proceedings;

☐ Other.

(II) Detailed description of intended use, including, where applicable, the relevant factual

circumstances, the offence or act concerned:

(III) Applicable provisions of national law:

(IV) Reasons justifying subsequent use:

(E) Requested onward transfer of information or evidence (if applicable)

(I) Intended recipient:

☐ Member State:

☐ Third country:

☐ International organisation:

(II) Detailed description of intended use by recipient, including, where applicable, the relevant

factual circumstances, the offence or act concerned:

(III) Information concerning the identity of the suspect or accused person:

(IV) Applicable provisions of national law of the recipient:

(V) Reasons justifying onward transfer:

EN 29 EN

(F) Urgency (if applicable)

There is any urgency due to:

☐ Immediate and serious threat to public security;

☐ Imminent trial date;

☐ Other reason.

Detailed reasons justifying urgency:

(G) Additional information

Where applicable, state other information regarding this request:

(H) Requesting authority

Name of authority:

Name of its representative:

Post held:

Phone number (country code)(area/city code):

Email:

Address:

File number:

Language(s) in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

Electronic signature:

Date:

(I) Validating authority (if applicable)

Name of authority:

Name of its representative:

Post held:

Phone number (country code)(area/city code):

Email:

Address:

File number:

Language(s) in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

Please indicate if the main contact point for the executing authority should be the:

☐ requesting authority;

☐ validating authority.

Electronic signature:

Date:

EN 30 EN

 new

ANNEX V

NOTIFICATION OF URGENT CROSS-BORDER SURVEILLANCE

This form is used in order to notify a Member State about the urgent cross-border surveillance

carried out by law enforcement officers of the ……………………………….. (investigating

Member State). I hereby inform ………...........................……. (notified Member State) of the

continuation of surveillance in its territory. I hereby confirm that the law enforcement officers

conducting the surveillance are under instructions to act solely for the purpose of observation

and documentation of the cross-border surveillance and shall not exercise any coercive

powers in the territory of the notified Member State.

The competent authorities of the investigating State will issue and transmit a European

Investigation Order without delay and no later than 48 hours after the crossing of the state

border.

(A)5 The competent authority of the investigating Member State

Competent authority:

Name of its representative:

Post held:

Phone number (country code)(area/city code):

Email:

Address:

File number:

Language(s) in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

(B) Urgency justification

Reasons justifying urgency:

(C) Information about state of play and duration

(II) The date/time of entry into the territory of the notified Member State:

(III) The (estimated) duration of the cross-border surveillance in the notified Member State:

(IV) The location of the crossing of the State border and the (estimated) area of operation:

(D) Information about the criminal proceedings

(I) Legal classification of the offence(s) for which the notification is issued:

(II) Description of the criminal act:

(III) Authority which authorised the surveillance:

5 The authority which is referred to here is the one which should be contacted in further correspondence

with the investigating Member State.

EN 31 EN

(E) Identification of the person(s) and/or object under surveillance

(i) Identity of the person(s)

Name(s):

First name(s):

Other relevant name(s), if applicable:

Aliase(s), if applicable:

Sex:

Nationality(ies):

Identity number or social security number:

Date of birth:

Place of birth:

Residence and/or known address; if address not known, state the last known address:

Other relevant information:

(ii) Identification of object(s)

Description:

Licence plate number of a vehicle / manufacturer / model / colour:

Other relevant information:

(F) Relation to an EIO or a notification on the use of a technical recording device

without the need for technical assistance

If relevant, please indicate if a related EIO or a notification on the use of a technical recording

device without the need for technical assistance has already been addressed or will be

addressed to the notified Member State in the same case.

(i) Related EIO

The (estimated) date of issue:

The authority which issued or is expected to issue the EIO:

The authority to which it was or will be transmitted:

Reference number of the issuing authority:

Reference number of the executing authority:

(ii) Related notification on the use of a technical recording device without the need for

technical assistance

The (estimated) date of issue:

The authority which issued or is expected to issue the notification:

The authority to which it was or will be transmitted:

Reference number of the competent authority of the investigating Member State:

EN 32 EN

Reference number of the competent authority of the notified Member State:

(G) Contact details of the law enforcement officers on the ground

Name of the law enforcement officer(s):

Phone number(s):

(H) Additional information

Where applicable, state other information regarding this notification:

(I) Signature and date

Signature:

Date of issuing:

EN 33 EN

 new

ANNEX VI

NOTIFICATION OF THE USE OF A TECHNICAL RECORDING DEVICE

WITHOUT THE NEED FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

This form is used in order to notify a Member State about the technical recording device that

will be, is or has been used on its territory without its technical assistance. I hereby inform

………………… (competent authority) of the ……………(notified Member State) of such

use.

(A)6 The competent authority of the investigating Member State

Investigating Member State:

Competent authority:

Name of its representative:

Post held:

Phone number (country code)(area/city code):

Email:

Address:

File number:

Language(s) in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

(B) Information about state of play and duration

(I) This notification takes place:

☐ prior to the use of the technical recording device

☐ during the use of the technical recording device

☐ after the use of the technical recording device

(II) The (estimated) date/time of entry into the territory of the notified Member State:

(III) The (estimated) duration of the use of the technical recording device (as known to the

competent authority) in the notified Member State:

(IV) The (estimated) location of the crossing of the State border and area of operation:

(C) Information about the criminal proceedings

(I) Legal classification of the offence(s) for which the notification is issued and the applicable

statutory provision/code:

(II) Summary of the criminal act:

(III) Reasons why the measure is relevant for the purpose of criminal proceedings:

6 The authority which is referred to here is the one which should be contacted in further correspondence

with the investigating Member State.

EN 34 EN

(IV) Authority which authorised the use of the technical recording device:

(D) Target of the measure

(I) Information on the object on/in which the technical recording device is installed:

(II) Type of technical recording device:

☐ Device enabling the collection of location data;

☐ Device enabling the collection of audio data;

☐ Device enabling the collection of visual data.

(III) Technical description of the device:

(E) Identity of the person(s) concerned

State all information, as far as they are known, regarding the identity of the (i) natural or (ii)

legal person(s) against whom the proceedings are taking place.

(i) In the case of natural person(s)

Name(s):

First name(s):

Other relevant name(s), if applicable:

Aliase(s), if applicable:

Sex:

Nationality(ies):

Identity number or social security number:

Date of birth:

Place of birth:

Residence and/or known address; if address not known, state the last known address:

(ii) In the case of legal person(s)

Name:

Form of legal person:

Shortened name, commonly used name or trading name, if applicable:

Registered seat:

Registration number:

Address of the legal person:

Name and contact details of the representative of the legal person:

(F) Relation to an EIO, a notification of urgent cross-border surveillance or other

request or order

If relevant, please indicate if a related EIO or a notification of urgent cross-border

EN 35 EN

surveillance has already been addressed or will be addressed to the notified Member State in

the same case.

(i) Related EIO

The (estimated) date of issue:

The authority which issued or is expected to issue the EIO:

The authority to which it was or will be transmitted:

Reference number of the issuing authority:

Reference number of the executing authority:

(ii) Related notification of urgent cross-border surveillance

The (estimated) date of issue:

The authority which issued or is expected to issue the notification:

The authority to which it was or will be transmitted:

Reference number of the competent authority of the investigating Member State:

Reference number of the competent authority of the notified Member State:

(ii) Other related judicial cooperation request, notification or order based on the principle

of mutual recognition

The (estimated) date of issue:

The authority which issued or is expected to issue the request or order:

The authority to which it was or will be transmitted:

Reference number of the authority of the investigating Member State:

Reference number of the authority of the notified Member State:

Type and subject of a request, order or a notification:

(G) Additional information

Where applicable, state other information regarding this notification:

(H) Electronic signature and date

Electronic signature:

Date of issuing:

Please note that any objection to the use of the technical recording device or to the use of

material obtained, as well as the indication of any conditions limiting the use of that material,

must be made no later than 96 hours after the receipt of this notification.

____________________________________________________________

EN 36 EN

 new

ANNEX VII

REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO USE PREVIOUSLY EXCHANGED INFORMATION

AS EVIDENCE

This request has been issued by a competent authority. This request seeks the consent of the

requested authority to use previously exchanged information as evidence. The requesting

authority certifies that the issuing of this request is necessary and proportionate for the

purpose of the criminal proceedings concerned and would be permissible under the same

conditions in a similar domestic case in the requesting State.

(A) Requesting State and requested State

Requesting State:

Requested State:

Name of requested authority:

(B) Details of the previous transmission of information

Date of prior transmission:

Authority that transmitted the information:

File number:

Authority that received the information:

File number:

Legal basis of prior transmission of information:

☐ Directive (EU) 2023/9777;

☐ Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on

European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member

States of the European Union8 (Article 7).

Purpose for which the information was originally exchanged:

Any conditions attached by the transmitting authority for the use of information (if

applicable):

(C) Purpose of use as evidence

Detailed description of intended use, including, where applicable, the relevant factual

7 Directive (EU) 2023/977 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on the

exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities of Member States and repealing

Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA (OJ L 134, 22.5.2023, pp. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/977/oj). 8 Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union,

on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ C

197, 12.7.2000, pp. 3.

EN 37 EN

circumstances, the offence or act concerned:

Applicable provisions of national law:

Reasons for requesting use as evidence:

Information concerning the identity of the suspect or accused person:

(D) Description of information which this request concerns

Description of information:

Summary description of content:

Date range covered (if applicable):

Method of collection (if relevant):

(E) Urgency (if applicable)

There is any urgency due to:

☐ Immediate and serious threat to public security;

☐ Imminent trial date;

☐ Other reason.

Detailed reasons justifying urgency:

(F) Legal remedies and additional information

Please indicate whether and what legal remedies are available under the national law of the

requesting State against the issuing of the request for consent to use previously exchanged

information as evidence:

Where applicable, state other information regarding this request:

(G) Requesting authority

Name of authority:

Name of its representative:

Post held:

Phone number (country code)(area/city code):

Email:

Address:

File number:

Language(s) in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

Electronic signature:

Date:

EN 38 EN

(H) Validating authority (if applicable)

Name of authority:

Name of its representative:

Post held:

Phone number (country code)(area/city code):

Email:

Address:

File number:

Language(s) in which it is possible to communicate with the authority:

Please indicate if the main contact point for the executing authority should be the:

☐ requesting authority;

☐ validating authority.

Electronic signature:

Date:

EN 39 EN

 new

ANNEX VIII

EUROPEAN REMOTE PARTICIPATION ORDER (ERPO)

The ERPO has been issued by a competent authority. The issuing authority certifies that the

issuing of this ERPO is proportionate and appropriate to facilitate the participation of

the suspect, accused person, or victim of crime in one or more court hearing(s) in criminal

proceedings in the issuing State, taking into account the rights of the person concerned, and

that it complies with the conditions of Title III, Article 37 of the Directive.

Section A:

Issuing State:

Issuing authority (name, address, contact details):

Executing State:

Executing authority:

Section B: Identity of the person concerned by the request for remote participation

1.The ERPO is issued to ensure remote participation of:

☐ a suspect/accused person

☐ a convicted person

☐ a victim of crime, who has the status of party to the proceedings

2.State all information, as far as known, regarding the identity of the person(s) concerned by

the ERPO (if more than one person is concerned please provide the information on each

person):

Last name:

First name:

Other relevant names if applicable:

Aliases, if applicable:

Sex:

Nationality:

Identity number or social security number, if available:

Type and number of the identity document(s) (ID card, passport), if available: Date of birth:

EN 40 EN

Place of birth: Residence and/or known address:

Location in the executing Member State, if available and different from residence/known

address:

Language which the person understands:

Any relevant information known to the issuing authority concerning possible vulnerabilities

of that person:

Section C: Identity and contact details of the lawyer of the person concerned by the

ERPO

1. Clarify if the lawyer of the person concerned is:

☐ mandated by the concerned person

☐ appointed by the issuing State

2. Contact details:

Last name:

First name:

Type and number of the identity document(s) (ID card, passport), if available:

Date of birth:

Place of birth:

Email:

Telephone number:

Registered office name:

Registered office address:

Section D: Description of the criminal act subject to the proceedings

1. Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) under investigation/prosecution in the

proceedings for which the ERPO is issued and the applicable statutory provision/code:

2. Is the offence for which the ERPO is issued punishable in the issuing State by a custodial

sentence or detention order of a maximum of at least three years as defined by the law of the

issuing State and included in the list of offences set out below? (please tick the relevant box)

EN 41 EN

☐participation in a criminal organisation

☐terrorism

☐trafficking in human beings

☐sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

☐illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

☐illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives

☐corruption

☐fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Union within the

☐meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European

Communities’ financial interests

☐laundering of the proceeds of crime

☐counterfeiting currency, including of the euro

☐computer-related crime

☐environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in

endangered plant species and varieties

☐facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence

☐murder, grievous bodily injury

☐illicit trade in human organs and tissue

☐kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking

☐racism and xenophobia

☐organised or armed robbery

☐illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art

☐swindling

☐racketeering and extortion

☐counterfeiting and piracy of products

☐forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein

☐forgery of means of payment

☐illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters

☐illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials

☐trafficking in stolen vehicles

☐rape

☐arson

☐crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

EN 42 EN

☐unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships

☐sabotage

☐violation of union restrictive measures

Section E: Stage of the proceedings and court hearing or hearings to which the

ERPO relates

Current stage of the proceedings:

Hearing or hearings concerned by the ERPO:

☐pre-trial hearing(s), please specify

☐one or more trial hearing(s), please specify

☐all trial hearing(s)

Specific information on the type, number and nature of hearing(s) concerned:

Section F: Reasons for issuing the ERPO

1. Information on the residence of the person concerned in the executing State or on the

justified reasons for remote participation

2. Reasons why the ERPO is considered proportionate and appropriate in the specific

case:

Section G: Consent or request of the concerned person

1. Did the concerned person request to have an ERPO issued?

☐yes, records of the request are attached

☐no

2. Did the concerned person consent to their remote participation?

☐yes, records of the consent are attached

☐no, the exception under Title III, Article 37(2) applies – see Section H

☐ no, the exception of Title III Article 37(3)applies for the following reasons:

Section H: Requesting assistance of the executing State to seek the consent of the

concerned person (if applicable)

☐with this ERPO, the issuing authority also seeks assistance of the executing State to obtain

the consent of the person to remotely participate in the concerned hearing(s), and to provide to

that person all the relevant information, in accordance with Title III, Article 38 of the

Directive, before taking a decision on recognition and execution of the ERPO.

EN 43 EN

Indicate any formalities or procedures to be complied with by the executing authority while

seeking the consent and providing information to the person concerned:

List of documents attached for this purpose:

Section I: Proposed practical arrangements for the execution of the ERPO:

Possible date(s) (dd/mm/yyyy) and time(s) (hh:mm:ss with specification of the

applicable time zone) of the hearing(s), and approximate duration:

Name and contact details of the authority conducting the hearing(s):

Any formalities and procedures to be complied with required by the law of the issuing State:

Need for an interpreter in the executing state:

☐Yes

☐ No

Language(s) arrangements:

Special needs to be taken into account and measures/arrangements necessary to accommodate

those needs:

Information on the technical means/videoconferencing system to be used:

If applicable, information on a possible pre-test of technical means and contact person (e.g. IT

specialist/relevant operator):

Other relevant information:

Section J: Legal remedies

1. Please indicate if a legal remedy has already been sought against the issuing of the ERPO

and, if so, please provide further details Please indicate if a legal remedy has already been

sought against the issuing of an EIO, and if so please provide further details (description of

the legal remedy, including necessary steps to take and deadlines):

2. Where a legal remedy has not been sought against the issuing of an ERPO, please indicate

whether and what legal remedies are available against the issuing of an ERPO:

3. Authority in the issuing State which can supply further information on procedures for

seeking legal remedies in the issuing State:

Name:

Contact person (if applicable):

Address:

EN 44 EN

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code)

E-mail:

Section K: Details of the judicial authority which validated the ERPO (if applicable)

Please indicate the type of judicial authority which has validated this ERPO:

☐judge or court

☐investigating judge

Official name of the validating authority:

Name of its representative:

Post held (title/grade):

File no:

Address:

Tel. No: (country code) (area/city code)

E-mail:

Languages in which it is possible to communicate with the validating authority:

Please indicate if the main contact point for the executing authority should be the:

☐issuing authority

☐validating authority

Electronic signature and details of the validating authority

Name:

Post held (title/grade):

Date:

Official stamp (if available):

EN 45 EN

 2014/41/EU

 new

ANNEX IXD

THE CATEGORIES OF OFFENCES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 11

– participation in a criminal organisation,

– terrorism,

– trafficking in human beings,

– sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,

– illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,

– illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,

– corruption,

– fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Union within

the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European

Communities' financial interests,

– laundering of the proceeds of crime,

– counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,

– computer-related crime,

– environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in

endangered plant species and varieties,

– facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,

– murder, grievous bodily injury,

– illicit trade in human organs and tissue,

– kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,

– racism and xenophobia,

– organised or armed robbery,

– illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,

– swindling,

– racketeering and extortion,

– counterfeiting and piracy of products,

– forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,

– forgery of means of payment,

– illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,

– illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,

– trafficking in stolen vehicles,

– rape,

– arson,

EN 46 EN

– crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,

– unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,

– sabotage,

–  violation of Union restrictive measures. 

EN 47 EN



ANNEX X

Part A

Repealed Directive with list of the successive amendments thereto

(referred to in Article 63)

Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, pp.

1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/41/oj)

Directive (EU) 2022/228 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 39, 21.2.2022,

pp. 1,ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/228/oj)

Directive (EU) 2023/2843 of the European Parliament and of the Council – only Article 11

(OJ L, 2023/2843, 27.12.2023,ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2843/oj)

Part B

Time-limit for transposition into national law and date of application (referred to in Article

63)

Directive Time-limit for

transposition

Date of application

2014/41/EU 22 May 2017

2022/228

2023/2843

14 March 2023

2 years from the entry into

force of the corresponding

implementing act referred to

in Article 10(3)(a) of

Regulation (EU) 2023/2844

From the first day of the

month following the period

of two years after the entry

into force of the

corresponding implementing

act referred to in

Article 10(3)(a) of

Regulation (EU) 2023/2844

EN 48 EN

ANNEX XI

CORRELATION TABLE

Directive 2014/41/EU This Directive

- Article 1(1)

- Article 1(3)

Article 1(1) Article 3(1)

Article 1(2) Article 3(2)

Article 1(3) Article 3(3)

Article 1(4) Article 1(2)

Article 2, introductory wording Article 2(1), introductory wording

Article 2, point (a) Article 2(1), point (a)

Article 2, point (b) Article 2(1), point (b)

Article 2, point (c), introductory wording Article 2(1), point (c), introductory wording

Article 2, point (c)(i) Article 2(1), points (c)(i) and (c)(ii)

Article 2, point (c)(ii) Article 2(1), point (c)(iii) and Article 2(2)

Article 2, point (d) Article 2(1), point (d)

- Article 2(1), points (e), (f), (g), (h)

Article 3 Article 4

Article 4 Article 5

Article 5(1), introductory wording Article 6(1), introductory wording

Article 5(1), point (a) Article 6(1), point (a)

Article 5(1), point (b) Article 6(1), point (b)

Article 5(1), point (c) Article 6(1), point (c)

Article 5(1), point (d) Article 6(1), point (d)

Article 5(1), point (e) Article 6(1), point (e)

- Article 6(1), point (f)

EN 49 EN

- Article 6(1), point (g)

Article 5(2) Article 6(2)

Article 5(3) Article 6(3)

- Article 6(4)

Article 5a(1) Article 51(1)

- Article 51(2)

Article 5a(2) Article 51(3)

Article 6 Article 7

Article 7(1) Article 8(1)

Article 7(2) Article 8(2)

Article 7(3) Article 52

Article 7(4) -

Article 7(5) Article 8(3)

Article 7(6) Article 8(4)

Article 7(7) Article 8(5)

Article 8(1) Article 9(1)

Article 8(2) Article 9(2)

Article 8(3) Article 9(3)

Article 9 Article 10

Article 10 Article 11

Article 11 Article 12

Article 12(1) Article 13(1)

Article 12(2) Article 13(3)

Article 12(3) Article 13(2), point (a)

Article 12(4) Article 13(2), point (b)

- Article 13(4)

EN 50 EN

- Article 13(5)

Article 12(5) Article 13(6)

Article 12(6) Article 13(7)

- Article 13(8)

Article 13(1) Article 14(1)

Article 13(2) Article 14(2)

Article 13(3) Article 14(3)

Article 13(4) Article 14(4)

- Article 14(5)

Article 14(1) Article 17(1)

Article 14(2) Article 17(2)

Article 14(3) Article 17(3)

Article 14(4) Article 17(4)

Article 14(5) Article 17(5)

Article 14(6) Article 17(6)

Article 14(7) Article 17(7)

Article 15 Article 15

Article 16 Article 16

Article 17 Article 18

Article 18 Article 19

Article 19(1) Article 20(1)

Article 19(2) Article 20(2)

Article 19(3) Article 20(3)

Article 19(4) Article 20(4)

- Article 20(5)

Article 21 Article 54

EN 51 EN

- Article 21

Article 22 Article 22

Article 23 Article 23

Article 24(1) Article 24(1)

Article 24(2), introductory wording Article 24(2)

Article 24(2), point (a) Article 24(2)

Article 24(2), point (b) -

Article 24(3) Article 24(3)

Article 24(4) Article 24(4)

Article 24(5), introductory wording Article 24(5), introductory wording

Article 24(5), point (a), first subparagraph Article 24(5), point (a), first subparagraph

Article 24(5), point (a), second

subparagraph

-

Article 24(5), point (b) Article 24(5), point (b)

Article 24(5), point (c) Article 24(5), point (c)

Article 24(5), point (d) Article 24(5), point (d)

Article 24(5), point (e) Article 24(5), point (e)

Article 24(6) Article 24(6)

Article 24(7) Article 24(7)

Article 25 Article 25

Article 26 Article 26

Article 27 Article 27

Article 28(1), introductory wording Article 28(1), introductory wording

Article 28(1), point (a) Article 28(1), point (a)

Article 28(1), point (b) Article 28(1), point (b)

- Article 28(1), point (c)

- Article 28(1), point (d)

EN 52 EN

Article 28(2) Article 28(2)

Article 28(3) Article 28(3)

Article 28(4) Article 28(4)

Article 29 Article 29

- Article 30

Article 30(1) Article 31(1)

Article 30(2) Article 31(2)

Article 30(3) Article 31(3)

Article 30(4) Article 31(4)

Article 30(5) Article 31(5)

Article 30(6) Article 31(6)

- Article 31(7)

Article 30(7) Article 31(8)

Article 30(8) Article 31(9)

Article 31(1) Article 33(1)

Article 31(2) Article 33(2)

Article 31(3) Article 33(3)

Article 31(4) Article 33(2)

- Article 33(5)

- Article 33(6)

- Article 33(7)

Article 32 Article 32

- Article 34

- Article 35

- Article 36

Article 37

EN 53 EN

- Article 38

- Article 39

- Article 40

- Article 41

- Article 42

- Article 43

- Article 44

- Article 45

- Article 46

- Article 47

- Article 48

- Article 49

- Article 50

- Article 53

- Article 55

- Article 56

- Article 57

Article 33(1), introductory wording Article 58(1), introductory wording

Article 33(1), point (a) Article 58(1), point (a)

- Article 58(1), point (b)

- Article 58(1), point (c)

Article 33(1), point (b) Article 58(1), point (d)

Article 33(1), point (c) Article 58(1), point (e)

Article 33(2) Article 58(2)

Article 33(3) Article 58(3)

Article 33(4) Article 58(4)

EN 54 EN

- Article 58(5)

Article 34(1), introductory wording Article 59(1), introductory wording

Article 34(1), point (a) Article 59(1), point (a)

Article 34(1), point (b) Article 59(1), point (b)

Article 34(1), point (c) Article 59(1), point (c)

- Article 59(1), point (d)

- Article 59(1), point (e)

- Article 59(1), point (f)

- Article 59(1), point (g)

- Article 59(1), point (h)

Article 34(2) -

- Article 59(2)

- Article 59(3)

Article 34(3) Article 59(4)

Article 34(4) Article 59(5)

- Article 59(6)

- Article 59(7)

Article 35 -

- Article 60

Article 36(1) Article 61(1)

Article 36(2) Article 61(2)

Article 36(3) -

- Article 61(3)

Article 37 Article 62

- Article 63

Article 38 Article 64

EN 55 EN

Article 39 Article 65

Annex A Annex I

Annex B Annex II

Annex C Annex III

Annex D Annex IX

- Annex IV

- Annex V

- Annex VI

- Annex VII

- Annex VIII

EN 1 EN

ANNEX XII

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL AND DIGITAL STATEMENT

Contents

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ................................................. 3

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative ...................................................................................... 3

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned .............................................................................................. 3

1.3. Objective(s) .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1. General objective(s) ..................................................................................................... 3

1.3.2. Specific objective(s) ..................................................................................................... 3

1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact ...................................................................................... 4

1.3.4. Indicators of performance ............................................................................................ 4

1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to: ................................................................................. 5

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative .............................................................................. 5

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative ............................................................ 5

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g.

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For

the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting

from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise

created by Member States alone. ................................................................................. 6

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past .................................................. 6

1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with

other appropriate instruments ....................................................................................... 7

1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for

redeployment ................................................................................................................ 7

1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact .................................... 8

1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned ............................................................. 8

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................................... 9

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules .................................................................................... 9

2.2. Management and control system(s) ............................................................................. 9

2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation

mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed .................. 9

2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up

to mitigate them............................................................................................................ 9

2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between

the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the

expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure) ......................................... 10

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities .............................................................. 10

EN 2 EN

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............ 11

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s)

affected ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations ................................... 13

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations.................................... 13

3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget ............................................................................. 13

3.2.2. Estimated output funded from operational appropriations (not to be completed for

decentralised agencies)............................................................................................... 16

3.2.3. Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations ............................... 19

3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget .............................................................................. 19

3.2.4. Estimated requirements of human resources.............................................................. 19

3.2.4.1. Financed from voted budget....................................................................................... 19

3.2.5. Overview of estimated impact on digital technology-related investments ................ 21

3.2.6. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework.............................. 22

3.2.7. Third-party contributions ........................................................................................... 22

3.3. Estimated impact on revenue ..................................................................................... 22

4. DIGITAL DIMENSIONS .......................................................................................... 23

4.1. Requirements of digital relevance .............................................................................. 23

4.2. Data ............................................................................................................................ 23

4.3. Digital solutions ......................................................................................................... 25

4.4. Interoperability assessment ........................................................................................ 25

4.5. Measures to support digital implementation .............................................................. 26

EN 3 EN

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the

European Investigation Order in criminal matters and the European Remote

Participation Order (recast)

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters

1.3. Objective(s)

1.3.1. General objective(s)

The general objective of the initiative is to contribute to the further development of

the area of freedom, security and justice by strengthening effective, secure and

fundamental rights-compliant judicial cooperation in criminal matters between

Member States. The proposal is time-bound with respect to the transposition period

and sets out a timetable for the digital implementation of the instrument.

This objective will be pursued by improving the functioning of the European

Investigation Order (EIO) for the cross-border gathering of evidence in criminal

matters and establishing a Union framework facilitating the remote participation of

suspects, accused persons and victims of crime in criminal court hearings where they

are located in another Member State, via the issuance of European Remote

Participation Orders (ERPOs), as well as further enhancing the secure electronic

exchange of the relevant forms and official communications through the

decentralised IT system.

Progress towards this objective will be monitored on the basis of the statistical data

to be collected and transmitted annually by Member States, including data on EIOs

and ERPOs transmitted, recognised, executed or refused, legal remedies sought, and

the time needed to recognise and/or execute requests.

1.3.2. Specific objective(s)

Specific objective No 1

To improve, by the end of the transposition period, the effectiveness, legal clarity

and consistency of the European Investigation Order framework for the cross-border

gathering of evidence in criminal matters, including through clearer rules on the

issuing, recognition and execution of EIOs, notifications and related requests, while

ensuring full respect for fundamental rights and procedural safeguards.

Progress towards this objective will be measured, in particular, through annual

statistics on the number of EIOs and notifications transmitted, executed or refused,

the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution, legal remedies sought, and the

time needed to transmit evidence or decisions on non-recognition or non-execution.

Specific objective No 2

To establish, by the end of the transposition period, a Union framework for the

issuing, recognition and execution of ERPOs, enabling suspects, accused persons and

victims of crime, who have the status of parties to the concerned proceedings, when

located in another Member State, to participate effectively and securely in criminal

EN 4 EN

court hearings by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology,

while preserving the fairness of the proceedings and the effective exercise of their

procedural rights.

Progress towards this objective will be measured, in particular, through annual

statistics on the number of ERPOs transmitted, recognised, executed or refused, the

stage of the proceedings concerned, the categories of persons concerned, the grounds

for non-recognition or non-execution, legal remedies sought, and the time needed to

execute ERPOs or transmit decisions on non-recognition or non-execution.

Specific objective No 3

To support, within the relevant digital implementation timeline, the secure, reliable

and interoperable electronic exchange of EIOs, ERPOs, notifications, requests and

related official communications between competent authorities through the

decentralised IT system, and to facilitate the programmatic collection and annual

transmission of statistical data necessary for monitoring and evaluation.

Progress towards this objective will be measured, in particular, through the

availability and use of the relevant digital forms and communication flows, and the

annual transmission of statistical data by Member States.

1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

The proposal is expected to benefit competent national authorities by providing

clearer and more effective rules for cross-border judicial cooperation in criminal

matters, in particular for the issuing, recognition and execution of EIOs and ERPOs.

It is expected to benefit suspects, accused persons and victims of crime by reducing

practical and legal barriers to participation in criminal proceedings from another

Member State, while ensuring respect for fundamental rights and procedural

safeguards.

It is expected to benefit Member States by enabling secure and efficient electronic

exchanges through the decentralised IT system and by improving the availability of

reliable statistical data for monitoring and evaluation purposes.

1.3.4. Indicators of performance

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements.

Specific objective 1: Improve the functioning of the EIO

Indicator: average time needed to transmit decisions on recognition / execution or

non-recognition / non-execution.

Baseline: no reliable comprehensive EU-wide published baseline available. A

baseline could be established as of March 2028, in view of the ongoing

implementation work on the digitalisation of the current EIO Directive.

Target: progressive improvement in execution times, in line with the time limits laid

down in the Directive.

Specific objective 2: Establish the ERPO framework

Indicator: number and share of ERPOs recognised and executed or refused.

Baseline: Zero, as the ERPO is a new instrument.

EN 5 EN

Target: effective use of the ERPO from the first full year of application, with annual

data available for all Member States bound by the Directive.

Specific objective 3: Support secure digital exchange and monitoring

Indicator: share of Member States transmitting complete annual statistical data to the

Commission.

Baseline: no reliable comprehensive EU-wide published baseline available.

Target: annual transmission of complete aggregated statistical data by all Member

States bound by the Directive, covering the categories set out in the Directive.

1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to:

a new action

a new action following a pilot project / preparatory action9

the extension of an existing action

a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative

In the short term, the initiative requires the adoption of the recast of the Directive,

followed by the necessary transposition measures by Member States. Member States

will have to adapt their national legal frameworks and procedural and practical rules

to apply the revised framework on the EIO and the new rules on the ERPO.

In parallel, the Commission will have to prepare the necessary implementing act

under the Digitalisation Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/2844), in order to ensure

that the decentralised IT system supports the procedures introduced or amended by

this Directive, including in relation to the exchange of EIOs, ERPOs, notifications,

requests and related official communications. The Commission will also continue the

development and adaptation of the reference implementation software.

The roll-out is expected to follow this timeline:

1. Once the proposal has been agreed by the co-legislators, and within 20 days after

publication in the Official Journal, the Directive will enter into force.

2. Within two years after entry into force, Member States will have to adopt and

notify the national measures necessary to comply with the Directive. During the

same period, the Commission will adopt an implementing act on the decentralised IT

system established under the Digitalisation Regulation.

3. From the date of application of the Directive, the revised rules on EIOs and the

new ERPO framework will apply to procedures transmitted from that date.

4. For procedures requiring adaptation of the decentralised IT system, the relevant

communication rules will apply from the first day of the month following the period

of two years from the entry into force of the implementing act (cf. point 2 above).

5. In the longer term, the Commission will monitor the application of the Directive

on the basis of information and annual statistical data supplied by Member States. A

9 As referred to in Article 58(2), point (a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

EN 6 EN

report on the application of the Directive will be submitted within five years from the

entry into force of the relevant implementing acts.

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g.

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For

the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting

from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise

created by Member States alone.

Reasons for action at EU level (ex-ante)

Action at Union level is necessary because the initiative concerns cross-border

judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which cannot be sufficiently achieved by

Member States acting alone. Divergent national rules and practices regarding the

gathering of evidence, remote participation in criminal court hearings from another

Member State and communication between competent authorities create legal

uncertainty, delays and uneven protection of procedural rights.

Union action is therefore required to ensure a coherent framework based on mutual

recognition, common procedural safeguards and secure electronic communication

between competent authorities across the Member States.

Expected generated EU added value (ex-post)

The initiative is expected to generate EU added value by improving the effectiveness,

speed and consistency of cross-border judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It will

provide greater legal certainty for competent authorities and persons concerned,

reduce fragmentation and improve access to justice in relation to remote participation

in criminal court hearings, and facilitate secure and interoperable electronic

exchanges through the decentralised IT system.

It will also improve the availability of comparable statistical data, thereby supporting

better monitoring, evaluation and future policy development at Union level.

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

The initiative builds on the Commission’s experience in implementing comparable

Union instruments in the field of judicial cooperation and digitalisation, in particular

the Service of Documents Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/1784), the Taking of

Evidence Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/1783), the Digitalisation Regulation

(Regulation (EU) 2023/2844), the e-evidence Regulation (Regulation (EU)

2023/1543) and, more recently, the Transfer of Proceedings Regulation (Regulation

(EU) 2024/3011).

Experience with the digitalisation of those instruments has shown that two aspects

are often underestimated in terms of the time, resources and coordination required:

(1) reaching a legally compliant and operationally workable common understanding

on interpretative questions and practical implementation arrangements; (2) agreeing

on the underlying technical standards, specifications and business processes required

for effective cross-border digital exchanges.

Those considerations have been taken into account in the resource planning set out in

this document, in particular as regards the legal, policy, coordination and technical

work required for the preparation of implementing measures, the development or

adaptation of the reference implementation software and the support to Member

States during implementation.

EN 7 EN

1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with

other appropriate instruments

The proposal is compatible with the Commission’s proposal for the next Multiannual

Financial Framework for 2028 to 2034 and with the proposed Justice Programme for

the same period. The proposed Justice Programme is intended to continue supporting

judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, judicial training and access to

justice, and places an increased focus on the digitalisation of justice.

The initiative is expected to create synergies with the proposed Justice Programme,

in particular as regards support for cross-border judicial cooperation, the

development and use of digital tools, and the effective implementation of Union

instruments in the area of justice. It is also coherent with the Digitalisation

Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/2844), which establishes a broad framework for

secure electronic communication in cross-border judicial cooperation.

Negotiations on the next MFF package and on the proposed 2028 to 2034 Justice

Programme remain ongoing. The financial planning for this initiative is therefore

without prejudice to the final outcome of the relevant budgetary and legislative

procedures.

1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for

redeployment

The implementation of the Directive will require both internal resources and external

expertise, in particular for the digitalisation components of the initiative. This

includes legal, policy and coordination work within the Commission, as well as

technical work relating to the development, adaptation, testing, maintenance and

support of the decentralised IT system and its components.

Financing options therefore include the use of in-house resources and the

procurement of external services, in particular for software development and

technical support at the Commission.

The scope for redeployment is limited, given the number of ongoing and planned

digitalisation initiatives in the area of justice and the need to ensure the timely

implementation of existing legal obligations. Any redeployment would therefore

need to be carefully assessed against its impact on other priority files and statutory

implementation deadlines.

EN 8 EN

1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact

limited duration

–  in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

–  financial impact from YYYY to YYYY for commitment appropriations and

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.

unlimited duration

– Implementation with a start-up period from 2028 to 2030,

– followed by full-scale operation.

1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned10

Direct management by the Commission

–  by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;

–  by the executive agencies

Shared management with the Member States

Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:

–  third countries or the bodies they have designated

–  international organisations and their agencies (to be specified)

–  the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund

–  bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation

–  public law bodies

–  bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that

they are provided with adequate financial guarantees

–  bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with

the implementation of a public-private partnership and that are provided with

adequate financial guarantees

–  bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the

common foreign and security policy pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on

European Union, and identified in the relevant basic act

– bodies established in a Member State, governed by the private law of a

Member State or Union law and eligible to be entrusted, in accordance with

sector-specific rules, with the implementation of Union funds or budgetary

guarantees, to the extent that such bodies are controlled by public law bodies or

by bodies governed by private law with a public service mission, and are provided

with adequate financial guarantees in the form of joint and several liability by the

controlling bodies or equivalent financial guarantees and which may be, for each

action, limited to the maximum amount of the Union support.

Comments

Not applicable.

10 Details of budget implementation methods and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on

the BUDGpedia site: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/corp/budget/financial-rules/budget-

implementation/Pages/implementation-methods.aspx.

EN 9 EN

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules

Within five years from the date of entry into force of the implementing acts referred

to in this Directive, the Commission is required to submit a report to the European

Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the

application of the Directive. In addition, the Directive provides for continuous and

comprehensive annual statistical reporting.

2.2. Management and control system(s)

2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation

mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed

This Directive does not affect the existing management mode(s), payment modalities

or control systems employed by the Commission.

The Directive establishes, inter alia, a digital channel for electronic communication

between competent national authorities and, where appropriate, the relevant Union

justice and home affairs agencies and bodies. This channel will be used for the

electronic communication of European Investigation Orders, notifications and

European Remote Participation Orders, as well as related official communication.

Its implementation will require the development of technical specifications and

standards, software development work, and coordination between national authorities

and all other actors involved. In view of the current low level of digitalisation of

communication in cross-border cases in the Member States, the Directive provides

for the development by the Commission of a software product, the “reference

implementation”.

The budget implementation method will therefore rely on the existing arrangements

applicable to the Commission. Implementation will be carried out through the use of

IT resources and procurement under the relevant operational budget lines, in

particular for work related to the implementing act and the development of the

reference implementation software.

The proposed implementation approach will be subject to the standard control

strategy applicable to the relevant Commission activities, including the applicable

procurement, financial management, project management, audit and internal control

procedures.

2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up

to mitigate them

The main identified risks are the following:

(a) Difficulties in reaching agreement on the technical specifications for the

decentralised IT system to be set out in the implementing act.

(b) Time and cost overruns due to unforeseen IT implementation issues in the

development of the decentralised IT system. This risk is mitigated by the fact that the

main building blocks necessary for the development of the decentralised IT system

already exist and are mature, namely the e-CODEX system, which itself is based on

the eDelivery building block, and the reference implementation software developed

by the Commission.

EN 10 EN

This risk will be addressed through the standard internal control systems applicable

to IT systems developed by the Commission, in particular governance oversight,

project management and risk management controls.

(c) Implementation and rollout delays at Member State level, in particular by the

respective national authorities responsible for connecting to and using the

decentralised IT system. This risk will be mitigated by ensuring that the

implementation timeline is feasible and agreed with Member States, and by

providing regular follow-up and technical support to the actors responsible for

implementation.

2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between

the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the

expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure)

This Directive does not affect the cost-effectiveness of the existing Commission

controls.

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

The appropriations necessary for this Directive will be covered by the existing fraud

prevention, control and audit measures applicable to the Commission.

EN 11 EN

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

The estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for

illustrative purposes only and does not pre-judge the next Multiannual Financial

Framework. The source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the

post-2027 period remain subject to the outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on

the MFF 2028-2034 and thereafter shall be determined through the annual budgetary

procedure. In particular, the allocation foreseen under the Justice Programme

remains subject to the outcome of the interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF

2028-2034 and should be financed, as applicable, through redeployment within the

relevant programme envelope. All appropriations and staffing allocations as of 2028

are indicative.

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget

line(s) affected

• Existing budget lines

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of

multiannual

financial

framework

Budget line Type of

expenditure Contribution

Number

Diff./Non-

diff.11

from

EFTA

countries 12

from

candidate

countries

and

potential

candidates 13

From

other

third

countries

other assigned

revenue

2 07 07 01, Promoting judicial cooperation Non-diff. NO NO NO NO

• New budget lines requested

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of

multiannual

financial

framework

Budget line Type of

expenditure Contribution

Number

Diff./Non-

diff.

from

EFTA

countries

from

candidate

countries

and

potential

candidates

from

other

third

countries

other assigned

revenue

11 Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 12 EFTA: European Free Trade Association. 13 Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans.

EN 12 EN

EN 13 EN

3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below

3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework Number 2

DG JUST

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF

2028-

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Operational appropriations

Budget line 07 07 01, Promoting judicial cooperation Commitments (1a) 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

Payments (2a) 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

Budget line Commitments (1b) 0

Payments (2b) 0

Appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope of specific programmes14

Budget line (3) 0

TOTAL appropriations Commitments =1a+1b+3 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

for DG JUST Payments =2a+2b+3 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

14 Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research.

EN 14 EN

The estimated impact on expenditure on the Justice programme for 2028 and beyond is added for illustrative purposes only and does not pre-

judge the next Multiannual Financial Framework. The source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period

remain subject to the outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and thereafter shall be determined through the annual

budgetary procedure. All appropriations as of 2028 are indicative.

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2028-

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

TOTAL operational

appropriations

Commitments (4) 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

Payments (5) 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

TOTAL appropriations of an

administrative nature financed from the

envelope for specific programmes

(6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL

appropriations

under HEADING 2

Commitments =4+6 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

of the multiannual

financial framework Payments =5+6 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2028-

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

• TOTAL

operational

appropriations

(all operational

headings)

Commitments (4) 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

Payments (5) 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

EN 15 EN

• TOTAL appropriations of an

administrative nature financed

from the envelope for specific

programmes (all operational

headings)

(6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL

appropriations

Under

Heading 1 to 3

Commitments =4+6 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

of the multiannual

financial

framework Payments =5+6 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

(Reference

amount)

Heading of multiannual financial framework 4 ‘Administrative expenditure’15

DG: JUST Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF

2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

 Human resources 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 4.074

 Other administrative expenditure 0.140 0.140 0 0 0 0 0 0.280

TOTAL DG

<JUST>Appropriations 0.722 0.722 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 4.354

15 The necessary appropriations should be determined using the annual average cost figures available on the appropriate BUDGpedia webpage.

EN 16 EN

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 4 of

the multiannual financial framework

(Total

commitments =

Total payments) 0.722 0.722 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 4.354

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2028-

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

TOTAL

appropriations under

HEADINGS 1 to 4

Commitments 1.022 1.022 2.882 2.882 2.882 2.882 2.882 16.454

of the multiannual

financial framework Payments 1.022 1.022 2.882 2.882 2.882 2.882 2.882 16.454

3.2.2. Estimated output funded from operational appropriations (not to be completed for decentralised agencies)

N.B. Specific Objective 1 pertains to improving the overall legal framework, not limited to aspects related to digitalisation as set out

under Specific Objectives 2 and 3. It is therefore not included in the table below as a self-standing objective.

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Indicate

objectives and

outputs



Year 2028

Year 2029

Year 2030

Year 2031

Enter as many years as necessary to show the

duration of the impact (see Section 1.6) TOTAL

OUTPUTS

Type16

Avera

ge

cost

N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost Total

No

Total

cost

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 217

16 Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g. number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 17 As described in Section 1.3.2. ‘Specific objective(s)’

EN 17 EN

- Output Elabor

ation

and

design

of the

statisti

cs

gatheri

ng

functio

nalities

0.050 1 0.050 1 0.050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.100

Subtotal for specific objective No 2 1 0.050 1 0.050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.100

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 3

- Output Techni

cal

specifi

cations

for the

imple

mentin

g acts,

includi

ng

busine

ss

proces

s

models

and

data

schem

as

0.250 1 0.250 1 0.250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.500

EN 18 EN

- Output Analys

is,

design,

imple

mentat

ion

and

suppor

t of the

decentr

alised

IT

system

2.300 0 0 0 0 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 5 11.500

Subtotal for specific objective No 3 1 0.250 1 0.250 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 7 12.000

TOTALS 2 0.300 2 0.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 1 2.300 9 12.100

EN 19 EN

3.2.3. Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an

administrative nature

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative

nature, as explained below

3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget

VOTED

APPROPRIATION

S

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

2028 -

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

HEADING 4

Human resources 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.5820.5820.582 4.074

Other administrative

expenditure 0.140 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.280

Subtotal HEADING 4 0.722 0.722 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 4.354

Outside HEADING 4

Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Other expenditure of an administrative nature

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Subtotal outside

HEADING 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL 0.722 0.722 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 0.582 4.354

The appropriations required for human resources and other expenditure of an administrative nature

will be met by appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to management of the action

and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together, if necessary, with any additional allocation

which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of

budgetary constraints.

The estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for illustrative

purposes only and does not pre-judge the next Multiannual Financial Framework. The source of

financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period remain subject to the

outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and thereafter shall be determined

through the annual budgetary procedure. All appropriations and staffing allocations as of 2028 are

indicative.

3.2.4. Estimated requirements of human resources

–  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained

below

3.2.4.1. Financed from voted budget

Estimate to be expressed in full-time equivalent units (FTEs)18

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)

18 Please specify below the table how many FTEs within the number indicated are already assigned to the

management of the action and/or can be redeployed within your DG and what are your net needs.

EN 20 EN

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and

Commission’s Representation

Offices)

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

• External staff (in FTEs)

20 02 01 (AC, END from the

‘global envelope’) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD

in the EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Admin. Support

line

• at

Headquarte

rs

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[XX.01.YY.YY] • in EU

Delegations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(AC, END - Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(AC, END - Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) -

Heading 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) -

Outside Heading 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

The staff required to implement the proposal (in FTEs):

Commission:

To be covered by

current staff

available in the

Commission

services

Exceptional additional staff*

To be financed

under Heading 4

To be financed

from BA line

To be financed

from fees

Establishment

plan posts

1 FTE (AD posts) –

internally

redeployed.

2 FTE (AD posts) -

from the

Commision’s

redeployment pool.

N/A N/A N/A

External staff

(CA, SNEs, INT)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Description of tasks to be carried out by:

EN 21 EN

Officials and temporary staff Commission

The implementation of the proposal requires 3 FTEs in DG JUST, covering

distinct and complementary functions:

1 FTE Legal/Policy Officer to chair the relevant committee work, manage

stakeholder coordination, and liaise with the IT development team on the

definition of business processes and system requirements.

1 FTE IT Project Manager to act as Product Owner, define and manage the

implementation of the IT system, coordinate technical delivery, and ensure that

the product is delivered in line with the applicable legal and operational

requirements.

1 FTE Financial Officer to manage the financial aspects of the action,

including procurement, external contracts, budget execution, payments, and

related reporting.

At present, DG JUST can only cover 1 FTE Legal/Policy Officer from existing

resources. The remaining needs cannot be fully absorbed through internal

redeployment within DG JUST, given the existing workload linked to the

digitalisation of judicial cooperation, the implementation of several related

legal acts, and the need to comply with binding statutory deadlines. Further

redeployments would therefore risk affecting the timely and legally compliant

implementation of both the present proposal and other ongoing digitalisation

files.

External staff N/A

The estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for

illustrative purposes only and does not pre-judge the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

The source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period

remain subject to the outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and

thereafter shall be determined through the annual budgetary procedure. All appropriations and

staffing allocations as of 2028 are indicative.

3.2.5. Overview of estimated impact on digital technology-related investments

Compulsory: the best estimate of the digital technology-related investments entailed

by the proposal/initiative should be included in the table below.

Exceptionally, when required for the implementation of the proposal/initiative, the

appropriations under Heading 4 should be presented in the designated line.

The appropriations under Headings 1-3 should be reflected as “Policy IT expenditure

on operational programmes”. This expenditure refers to the operational budget to be

used to re-use/ buy/ develop IT platforms/ tools directly linked to the implementation

of the initiative and their associated investments (e.g. licences, studies, data storage

etc). The information provided in this table should be consistent with details

presented under Section 4 “Digital dimensions”.

TOTAL Digital

and IT

appropriations

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2028 -

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

HEADING 4

EN 22 EN

IT expenditure (corporate)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Subtotal

HEADING 4 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000 0.000

Outside HEADING 4

Policy IT expenditure on operational programmes

0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

Subtotal outside

HEADING 4 0.3000.3002.3002.3002.3002.3002.300 12.100

TOTAL 0.300 0.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.300 12.100

3.2.6. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework

The proposal/initiative:

–  can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of

the multiannual financial framework (MFF)

–  requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF

and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the MFF Regulation

–  requires a revision of the MFF

3.2.7. Third-party contributions

The proposal/initiative:

–  does not provide for co-financing by third parties

–  provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below:

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

Total 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Specify the co-

financing body

TOTAL

appropriations

co-financed

3.3. Estimated impact on revenue

–  The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

–  The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

–  on own resources

EN 23 EN

–  on other revenue

–  please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Budget revenue line:

Appropriations

available for

the current

financial year

Impact of the proposal/initiative19

Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

Article ………….

For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

[…]

Other remarks (e.g. method/formula used for calculating the impact on revenue or

any other information).

[…]

4. DIGITAL DIMENSIONS

4.1. Requirements of digital relevance

Requirement 1 (R1): Mandatory use of a decentralised IT system (based on e-CODEX) for

electronic communication between competent authorities in accordance with Article 3 of

Regulation (EU) 2023/2844. Legal provision: Articles 2(1)(b), 51, 52. Stakeholders

affected: Member States (competent judicial/central authorities), Eurojust and European

Public Prosecutor’s Office, Commission. High-level processes: Cross-border judicial

communication, exchange of standard forms.

Requirement 2 (R2): Member States to provide statistical data to the Commission. Legal

provision: Article 57. Stakeholders affected: Member States, Commission. High-level

processes: Data collection on the application of the Directive.

Requirement 3 (R3): Commission to submit a report to the European Parliament, to the

Council and to the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this

Directive, supported by information supplied by the Member States. Legal provision:

Article 64. Stakeholders affected: Commission, European Parliament, Council, European

Economic and Social Committee. High-level processes: Reporting.

4.2. Data

Type of data Reference(s)

to the

requirement(s)

Actor who

provides the

data

Actor who

receives the

data

Trigger

for the

data

exchange

Frequency (if

applicable)

Standard Article 51 Member Member Manual or As needed

19 In the case of traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be

net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 10 % for collection costs, as proposed in

COM(2025)574.

EN 24 EN

judicial

cooperation

forms (as listed

in Annexes)

and other

communication

between

Member State

authorities, as

well as between

Member State

authorities with

Eurojust and

the European

Public

Prosecutor’s

Office,

transmitted in

electronic

format.

States’

authorities,

Eurojust,

European

Public

Prosecutor’s

Office

States’

authorities,

Eurojust,

European

Public

Prosecutor’s

Office

Automatic

Statistical data Article 57 Member

States

Commission Automatic Automatic:

Annually,

starting from

the date

falling three

years after the

date of entry

into force of

the relevant

implementing

act.

A report on the

application of

this Directive

Article 64 Commission European

Parliament;

Council

Within five

years from the

date of entry

into force of

the relevant

implementing

act.

The three data types align with the European Data Strategy’s goals of enhancing the use of

data for the public good and increasing transparency and trust in the use of data, by

facilitating the efficient exchange of information between Member States and promoting

transparency and accountability in the application of the Directive, ultimately supporting

the development of a more integrated, effective, and transparent judicial cooperation

framework.

The once-only principle is not directly relevant, as the decentralised IT system involves

EN 25 EN

data exchanges between Member State competent authorities and with the EU JHA

agencies and bodies. At the same time, the once-only principle is respected by ensuring

that, following the decentralised IT model for the system under Regulation (EU)

2023/2844, information, documents and procedural communications are transmitted

through the decentralised IT system in a secure, structured and interoperable manner, so

that competent authorities can rely on the electronic transmission made through that system

without requiring parallel or repeated submission of the same material through paper-based

or other channels.

4.3. Digital solutions

4.4. Interoperability assessment

Decentralised IT System established under Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 (Articles 2(1)(b),

51, 52): secure, encrypted, reliable, e-CODEX-based cross-border exchange of judicial

cooperation forms and related communication between competent authorities. In itself, e-

CODEX ensures secure EU cross-border interoperability by virtue of leveraging the

eDelivery building block.

Includes the extension of a reference implementation software developed by the

Commission for other cross-border judicial cooperation instruments, including the EIO,

which optionally can be used by the Member States without a suitable national system. No

use of AI technologies is envisaged; the system is a secure messaging and forms-exchange

platform.

The digital solution is designed to provide a secure environment for the exchange of

judicial cooperation forms and other communication between Member State authorities,

which is in line with the EU cybersecurity framework’s and other applicable digital policies

and legislative enactments with the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of

critical infrastructure and personal data.

R1: Mandatory use of the decentralised IT system

The decentralised IT system is itself an EU cross-border digital public service linking

competent authorities across all participating Member States, as well as Eurojust and the

European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It requires interaction across Member State borders

and has an effect on cross-border interoperability, as it facilitates the sharing of data and

information between competent authorities in different Member States, as well as with EU

entities.

The requirement therefore has a direct and significant interoperability impact, as it

establishes the digital channel for the secure electronic exchange of procedural

communications, documents and standard forms. The Interoperable Europe solution

identified for reuse is e-CODEX, a secure and interoperable framework for the exchange of

legal documents and information across borders. E-CODEX itself is based on eDelivery.

Other components include the Digital Procedural Standards, the reference implementation

and relevant eIDAS trust services. Remaining barriers may concern national system

integration, onboarding of competent authorities, semantic alignment of forms and data

fields, and differing levels of technical readiness across Member States.

R2: Provision of statistical data to the Commission

This requirement entails interaction between Member States and the Commission through

information systems, where statistical data are collected and transmitted electronically. It

EN 26 EN

4.5. Measures to support digital implementation

affects cross-border interoperability to the extent that comparable and reusable data must be

supplied by Member States for monitoring the application of the Directive.

The affected digital public service is the electronic collection and transmission of statistical

data. Relevant solutions for reuse include machine-readable formats and, where applicable,

leveraging the existing statistical functionalities developed under Regulation (EU)

2023/2844. Remaining barriers may concern differences in national data availability,

statistical methodologies, automation levels and definitions of indicators.

R3: Commission report on the application of the Directive

This requirement involves interaction between the Commission and Member States. Its

direct effect on cross-border interoperability is limited, as it concerns a narrative report

rather than the operational exchange of procedural communications. However, it will

leverage, to a large extent, the data and functionalities developed in the context of R2.

The affected digital public service is the reporting and evaluation process based on

information supplied by Member States. Relevant solutions for reuse include common,

reusable indicators and machine-readable statistical outputs. Remaining barriers may

include incomplete or non-comparable national data, divergent reporting practices and

limited automation.

1. Implementing act

Within two years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission will, as

necessary, adopt an implementing act. This measure supports Requirements 1 and 2.

The implementing act will set out the technical specifications and standards for the

decentralised IT system, including the relevant Digital Procedural Standards, the common

Business Process Model and XML data schemas necessary for interoperable cross-border

data exchange. The Commission will prepare and adopt the implementing act, with Member

States involved through the relevant committee. Eurojust, the EPPO and eu-LISA will be

involved as impacted actors.

Expected timeline: within two years after the entry into force of the Directive.

2. Development or adaptation of the reference implementation

Following adoption of the implementing act, the Commission will develop / adapt the

reference implementation software. This measure supports Requirements 1 and 2.

The Commission will leverage external service providers for its development activities, with

the exception of IT project management activities, which will remain with the services. The

development activities will be overseen by the IT Steering Committee in DG JUST under the

control of the System Owner. Standard Commission software development methodologies

will be used.

The reference implementation will be made available to Member States in sufficient time to

allow them to meet their legal obligations and enable the system to go live two years after

the entry into force of the implementing act. Member States, Eurojust, the EPPO and eu-

LISA will be involved in training, testing, validation and deployment planning. The

Commission services will also assist stakeholders in planning their onboarding.

Expected timeline: after adoption of the implementing act and before the go-live date.

EN 27 EN

3. Support, maintenance and further development

After go-live, continuous support, maintenance and further development will be required.

This measure supports Requirements 1 and 2, and indirectly Requirement 3.

The Commission will maintain and further develop the reference implementation, including

corrective maintenance, security updates and necessary new functionalities. eu-LISA,

Member States, Eurojust and the EPPO will be involved through their respective roles,

feedback and operational coordination.

Expected timeline: from go-live and on a continuous basis thereafter.

    Resolutsiooni liik: Riigikantselei resolutsioon Viide: Justiits- ja Digiministeerium /  / ; Riigikantselei /  / 2-5/26-01585

Resolutsiooni teema: Euroopa vahistamismääruse eelnõu

Adressaat: Justiits- ja Digiministeerium Ülesanne: Tulenevalt Riigikogu kodu- ja töökorra seaduse § 152` lg 1 p 2 ning Vabariigi Valitsuse reglemendi § 3 lg 4 palun valmistada ette Vabariigi Valitsuse seisukoha ja otsuse eelnõu järgneva algatuse kohta, kaasates seejuures olulisi huvigruppe ja osapooli: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters and the European Remote Participation Order (recast), COM(2026)313 EIS toimiku nr: 26-0262 Tähtaeg: 10.09.2026

Adressaat: Siseministeerium Ülesanne: Palun esitada oma sisend Justiits- ja Digiministeeriumile seisukohtade kujundamiseks antud eelnõu kohta (eelnõude infosüsteemi (EIS) kaudu). Tähtaeg: 28.08.2026

Lisainfo: Eelnõu on kavas arutada valitsuse 24.09.2026 istungil ja Vabariigi Valitsuse reglemendi § 6 lg 6 kohaselt sellele eelneval nädalal (16.09.2026) EL koordinatsioonikogus. Esialgsed materjalid EL koordinatsioonikoguks palume esitada hiljemalt 10.09.2026.

Kinnitaja: Nele Grünberg, Euroopa Liidu asjade direktori asetäitja Kinnitamise kuupäev: 13.08.2026 Resolutsiooni koostaja: Mari-Ann Järve [email protected],  

.