| Dokumendiregister | Riigikantselei |
| Viit | 26-01585-1 |
| Registreeritud | 12.08.2026 |
| Sünkroonitud | 14.08.2026 |
| Liik | |
| Funktsioon | |
| Sari | 02 Vabariigi Valitsuse istungite ja nõupidamiste ettevalmistamine ja korraldamine/2-5 Vabariigi Valitsuse otsuste alusdokumendid |
| Toimik | |
| Juurdepääsupiirang | Avalik |
| Adressaat | Justiits- ja Digiministeerium, Siseministeerium |
| Saabumis/saatmisviis | Justiits- ja Digiministeerium, Siseministeerium |
| Vastutaja | |
| Originaal | Ava uues aknas |
| Taotle dokumendi eemaldamist või parandamist |
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],
.
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….