Efficient and rapid mutual cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States (MS) of the EU is a goal that the EU has always pursued through its legal framework. In the past, through the adoption of instruments based on the principle of mutual legal assistance, and later also through instruments based on the principle of mutual recognition. However, until the adoption of Directive 2014/41/EU, which introduced the use of the EIO into the European legal order, the objective of swift and effective cooperation between EU MS was not met. Previous instruments were too complex and rigid, or only referred to certain types of evidence. The EIO is the first instrument in EU law based on the principle of mutual recognition and applicable to all types of evidence.
Notwithstanding the above, its use also raises a number of issues or disagreements between the authorities of the MS in practice (e.g. on the scope of the Directive, the EIO form, etc., described in more detail in this thesis), which often complicate effective cooperation between the MS of the EU. The existence of disagreements is linked in particular to unclear or deficient provisions of the Directive or the absence of harmonisation of concepts at EU level. In practice, this results in the application of national rules of EU MS which differ from each other, leading to diverse decisions of the authorities in practice. The latter is apparent from the presented positions of the Slovenian, Croatian and German authorities.
At present, contentious issues between authorities are resolved in practice mainly through Eurojust, soft EU law (e.g. guidelines) and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, in the future, given the many shortcomings that have become clear in the practical application of the Directive so far, it would be prudent to consider a possible amendment of the Directive to resolve contentious issues, thus achieving to a greater extent the objective of effective cooperation between the EU MS.
|
