Is national legislation which does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of [an EIO] for the search of residential and business premises, the seizure of certain items and the hearing of a witness compatible with Article 14(1) to (4), Article 1(4) and recitals 18 and 22 of Directive [2014/41] and with Articles 47 and 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Articles 13 and 8 [of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (“ECHR”)]?

Article 14 of Directive 2014/41, read in conjunction with Article 24(7) of that directive and Article 47 of the Charter, precludes legislation of a Member State which has issued an EIO that does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of an EIO for the carrying out of searches and seizures as well as the hearing of a witness by videoconference.

Can [an EIO] be issued under those circumstances?

Article 6 of Directive 2014/41, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and Article 4(3) TEU, precludes the issuing of an EIO by the competent authority of a Member State when the legislation of that Member State does not provide any legal remedy against the issuing of such an EIO.

Member States must ensure legal remedies for EIOs equivalent to those in similar domestic cases.

European Court of Justice (First Chamber) · 11 november 2021 · Judgment · Preliminary ruling

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2014/41/EU – European investigation order in criminal matters – Article 14 – Legal remedies – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State – Decision ordering searches, seizures and a hearing of a witness by videoconference)

Rechtsvraag

Does national legislation that does not provide any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order (EIO) for searches, seizures, and the hearing of a witness by videoconference comply with Article 14(1) to (4) and Article 1(4) of Directive 2014/41/EU, read in light of recitals 18 and 22 of the Directive, and Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

Regel

Art. 14(1), Directive 2014/41/EU (Member States must ensure legal remedies equivalent to those available in a similar domestic case)
Art. 47, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial)
Art. 1(4), Directive 2014/41/EU (Directive shall not modify the obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles)
Art. 6(1), Directive 2014/41/EU (Conditions for issuing an EIO: necessity, proportionality, and similar conditions in domestic cases)
Art. 4(3), Treaty on European Union (Principle of sincere cooperation)

Conclusie

The Court concluded that Article 14 of Directive 2014/41, read in conjunction with Article 24(7) of the Directive and Article 47 of the Charter, precludes legislation of a Member State that does not provide any legal remedy against the issuing of an EIO for searches, seizures, and the hearing of a witness by videoconference. Additionally, Article 6 of Directive 2014/41, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, also precludes the issuing of such an EIO under these circumstances.

Tijdlijn

11-05-2017 The Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad decided to issue a European Investigation Order (EIO) requesting the Czech authorities to carry out searches and seizures at the premises of a company in the Czech Republic and the home of Mr. Y, as well as to hear Mr. Y as a witness by videoconference.
07-11-2019 The Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad made a decision to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2014/41/EU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly concerning the absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State.
21-11-2019 The request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad was received at the Court of Justice of the European Union.
24-10-2019 The Court of Justice held in the judgment (C-324/17) that a judicial authority of a Member State does not need to include a description of legal remedies in Section J of the EIO form.
29-04-2021 The Advocate General presented his opinion at the sitting regarding the preliminary ruling request.
11-11-2021 The Court of Justice of the European Union issued its judgment, ruling that Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU, read in conjunction with Article 24(7) of the directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, precludes legislation of a Member State that does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of an EIO for searches, seizures, and the hearing of a witness by videoconference.