3 of 20

The EIO:

● wide scope

● may be issued in criminal proceedings or administrative proceedings

(where the decision may give rise to proceedings before a criminal court)

● has to be necessary and proportionate, possible in similar domestic case

● limited grounds for refusal

● operates with a standardised form

4 of 20

Time limits for recognition or execution of the EIO

● New principle: same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case

● 30 days for the decision of recognition: with the possibility to extend until 60 days

● 90 days for the execution of the investigative measure

● Possibility shorter deadlines or specific date

● 24 hours to communicate the decision on a request of provisional measure: to prevent the destruction, transformation, removal, transfer or disposal of evidence

5 of 20

��The 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters �(MLA 2000 EU Convention)

-Supplements the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on MLA in criminal matters
-Applicable between any EU Member State and Ireland and Denmark (non-EIO MS)
-Principle of proportionality
-Beyond traditional Mutual Legal Assistance
-Safeguard for the application of more favorable provisions

6 of 20

�MLA 2000 EU Convention – scope in relation to EIO

Joint Investigation teams (art. 13)

Sending and service of procedural documents (Art. 5)

Returning of objects to an injured party (Art. 8)

Spontaneous exchange of information (Art. 7)

Information on previous convictions

7 of 20

The 2001 Protocol to the Convention��

-Need for additional measures in the field for the purpose of the fight against crime, in particular organised crime, money laundering and financial crime
-Rules for requests for banking related information : on bank accounts, information on banking transactions, monitoring of banking transactions
-Exclusion as ground for refusal of banking secrecy, fiscal offences, political offences

8 of 20

And why not a Joint investigation team (JITs)?

- specific form of cross border legal assistance
- if circumstances of the case (investigations into criminal offences) call for coordinated, concerted action in other Member State(s)
- regulated by an Agreement between judicial/police authorities of at least two Member States
- no need of traditional Mutual Legal Assistance requests between the states participating in JIT
- enables direct exchange of information between the authorities
- can solve issues of admissibility of evidence in advance

9 of 20

��Joint investigation teams (JITs) – Art. 13 MLA 2000 EU Convention and FD 2002/465/JHA on JITs

! Need to have legal framework for JITs in place:

- National law : clear definition of the case – purpose – duration – composition, as indicated in Art 13 of the 2000 MLA Convention + national legislation)

JITs setting up by mutual agreements between two or more Member States:

- set up for a specific purpose and for a limited period of time (possible to extend)
- any Member State concerned with the investigation of offences with a cross-border dimension may request the setting up of a JIT
- Ready to use Model agreement for setting up a Joint Investigation Team

10 of 20

Joint investigation teams (JITs)

The Team :

- composed by law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges and other relevant personnel, led by a person from the State in which the JIT operates,
- acts in accordance with the national law of the territory where the investigation is taking place
- (seconded member of the Team) can request investigative measures without the need for using MLA regime. Such requests are regarded as if they were "national" in the State in which the JIT operates

11 of 20

JITs – Role of Eurojust and Europol�

Eurojust can request to the competent authorities in EU Member States to set up a JIT (Articles 6 and 7 of the Eurojust Decision)

Europol can participate in a support capacity in JITs (Art.3a of the Europol Convention – now art. 6 of the 2009 Europol Decision)

Europol officials –
- may assist in all activities and exchange information with all members of the JIT, without taking part in coercive measures
- may liaise directly with JIT members and provide any information available to Europol
�

12 of 20

Continuous assessment and funding

-Annual meetings of the network of national experts on JITs hosted alternatively by Europol and Eurojust
-Network of National Experts on Joint Investigation Teams - Secretariat established within Eurojust
-JITs Funding programme managed by Eurojust - may cover reimbursement of costs (travel, accommodation, translation, interpretation) and loan of equipment (mobile phones, laptops, mobile scanners and printers).
To learn more:
- Model agreement for setting up a Joint Investigation Team
- JITs Practical Guide
http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/JITs/joint-investigation-teams/Pages/jits-framework.aspx

13 of 20

�Mutual legal assistance and extradition Agreements of the Union with non EU countries

Legal basis : Articles 82(1) and 218(6) of the TFEU:
Commission leads negotiations, Council adopts decisions by qualified majority, European Parliament is fully involved
Basic principle: to balance between promoting concrete interest of the Union and its citizens and maintaining human rights and fundamental freedoms in international judicial cooperation agreements, in the light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

14 of 20

��EU - Norway and Iceland - key features��

MLA : MLA Agreement EU-Iceland and Norway = since 2013, parts of the MLA 2000 EU Convention and 2001 MLA protocol apply to Norway and Iceland

Extradition: Surrender Agreement EU-Iceland and Norway would extend provisions of the European Arrest Warrant to such countries –
but not yet in force

15 of 20

EU–US Agreements - background�

After the events of 9/11, EU and US started to cooperate quickly on modernization of law enforcement and judicial cooperation
First international agreement in the field of justice and home affairs signed by the EU
Very fast and constructive negotiations
Agreement sets common framework for cooperation, but co-exists together with and complete other bilateral agreements between EUMS and US

16 of 20

EU-US judicial cooperation

EU-US Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement – in force since 2010

EU-US Extradition Agreement – in force since 2010

EU-US MLA Agreement

The EU-US MLA Agreement was the first MLA Agreement negotiated by the EU acting on behalf of all Member States and has become a precedent for subsequent MLA Agreements. This Agreement has been in force since 2010.

It complemented the bilateral treaties which the US already had with some EU Member States. For Member States without a bilateral treaty, this Agreement was the first time that their MLA relationship with the US had been regulated.

The measures regulated by the Agreement include the giving of witness evidence by videolink, the provision of banking information and the setting up of Joint Investigation Teams between EU Member States and the US.

The review of the 2010 EU-US Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance, being conducted jointly by the EU and the US, as foreseen in Article 17 of the Agreement, is currently being carried out. The Commission will report on the review process and discuss concrete measures proposed mid 2016 under the Dutch presidency in the 1^st Semester.

The EU-US MLA Agreement was the first MLA Agreement negotiated by the EU acting on behalf of all Member States. It complemented the bilateral treaties which the US already had with some EU Member States. For states without a bilateral treaty, this Agreement was the first time that their MLA relationship had been regulated. The measures regulated by the Agreement include the giving of witness evidence by videolink, the provision of banking information and the setting us of Joint Investigation Teams between EU Member States and the US.

The EU-US Extradition Agreement applies to conduct which is criminal in both the EU and in the US and attracts sentences of at least 1 year's imprisonment.

17 of 20

�EU – US judicial cooperation - Key features of the Agreements�

Extradition agreement - modern practices that were absent from older extradition treaties between the U.S. and EU MS : e.g. dual criminality approach; simplifies authentication and transmission of documents

Mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreement –novelties in comparison to exiting mutual legal assistance treaties e.g., tools to identify bank accounts and transactions, and to facilitate the establishment of JITs

-EU as a Contracting Party is responsible for implementation of the obligations contained in each Agreement, even if applied in practice on national level

-EU Member States - not formally Contracting Parties - bound to the provisions of each EU-US Agreement as a matter of EU law, and they also have separate but parallel international obligations to the U.S.

Periodic Review of Agreements/Institutional Role of European Union - Both EU-US Agreements stipulate that the Contracting Parties will review their application, (made on 2015-2016)

Consultations – Both EU-US Agreements provide for consultations between the EU and the U.S., rather than between the U.S. and a Member State

18 of 20

EU - Japan MLA Agreement�

-At origin - political will of both parties, negotiated in record time
-Modern means of cooperation, such as the possibility to request bank information or to organise a hearing of a witness or an expert via videoconference
-Entered into force on 2 January 2011 and since the volume of requests has risen
-No review/consultations but informal meetings of experts (2016)

19 of 20

��Using EU agencies:��

The EU has set up specific structures to facilitate mutual assistance and support cooperation between judicial authorities:
Eurojust: an EU body comprising experienced judges or prosecutors who support and strengthen coordination and cooperation between national authorities in relation to serious crime;
European judicial network in criminal matters (EJN) : a network of magistrates and prosecutors who act as contact points in EU countries to facilitate judicial cooperation.