1 / 117

Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union

Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last updated: 31.10.2012. The European Judicial Training Network. With the support of the European Union. logo of the training organiser. Training organised by

quant
Download Presentation

Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last updated: 31.10.2012 The European JudicialTraining Network With the support of the European Union

  2. logo of the training organiser Training organised by (name of training organiser) on (date) at (place) Title (of the training) Version: 3.0 Last updated: 31.10. 2012 The European JudicialTraining Network With the support of the European Union

  3. Module 4Key actors in judicial cooperation in criminal matters Eurojust The European Judicial Network (EJN) The EJN tools Joint investigation teams Version: 3.0 Last updated: 31.10.2012

  4. EUROJUST > Key actors in cooperation in criminal matters

  5. Contents 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Objective 1.3. Competence 1.4. Referral to Eurojust 1.5. Composition 1.6. Action by Eurojust and by the national members 1.7. Information processing at Eurojust 1.8. Relations with partners 1.9. Perspectives 1.10. In practice... > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  6. 1.1. Introduction • Permanent judicial cooperation unit based in The Hague. • Not a supranational body, provides support to national judicial authorities • Intervention in bilateral, or rather, multilateral cases requiring coordination between national authorities • Legal framework: Decision of 28 February 2002 establishing Eurojust, as amended and strengthened by the Decision of 16 December 2008 > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  7. 1.2. Objectives • to stimulate and improve the coordination, between the competent authoritiesof the Member States, of investigations and prosecutions in the Member States; • to improve cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States, in particular by facilitating the execution of international mutual legal assistance and the implementation of extradition requests; • to support otherwise the competent authorities of the Member States in order to render their investigations and prosecutions more effective. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  8. 1.3. Competence • ‘Territorial’ competence • Principle: at least two Member States involved • In exceptional cases: • 1 Member State and the Community (e.g. fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community) • 1 Member State and 1 third State • Subject-matter competence (Article 4) • Exhaustive list but broad types of crime in line with Europol + Any offence committed together with one of the offences referred to in the list + Any other offence, if a competent authority of a Member State requests it > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  9. 1.4. Referral to Eurojust • The principle: • No need for preliminary request => Eurojust may act at its initiative • Exceptions: • when only one Member State is involved • where assistance is requested for a type of crime that does not fall within Eurojust’s general competence > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  10. 1.5. Composition > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  11. 1.5. Composition 1.5.1. The national members • Appointment: by each Member State and according to the organisation and distribution of internal competences • Location: in the Eurojust building (The Hague, Netherlands) • Status: determined by the Member State of origin • Duration: variable (min. 4 years from 2010) • Powers: variable, conferred by the Member State of origin. May include, in particular, the power to order investigative measures (see below) > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  12. 1.5. Composition 1.5.1. The national members • National situation • Indicate here: • the name of your State’s national member • the duties they performed prior to their appointment • the date of their appointment and term of office > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  13. 1.5. Composition 1.5.2. Deputies and assistants • Mere possibility in the 2002 decision. Designation of 1 assistant and 1 deputy became mandatory with the 2008 decision. • Appointment and statusdepend on the national system • assistant =/= deputy: the deputy must be able to replace the national member, while this is only a possibility for the assistant • Location: usually Eurojust but not mandatory National situationIndicate here the contact details of the assistant(s) > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  14. 1.5. Composition 1.5.3. Eurojust College • Made up of the 27 national members • 1 President + 2 Vice Presidents • Meets at least once a week • Involvement in some specific cases • Decisions by QM or 2/3 majority > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  15. 1.5. Composition 1.5.4. Staff • Consists of European civil servants • Approximately 270 people • Administrative Director • Networks’Secretariat at Eurojust (joint investigation teams, genocide) > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  16. 1.5. Composition 1.5.5. National correspondents • National judicial authorities designated to act as preferential link with the national member • Not an obligatory point of passage between the national member and national judicial authorities! National situation Indicate here the contact details of the correspondents > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  17. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS) • Each Member State was to establish an ENCS by 4 June 2011 (2008 Decision) • Objective: tocement Eurojust’s national base and coordinate the activities of various key national players in EU judicial cooperation > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  18. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS) Composition: • Correspondents (including terrorism correspondent) • EJN correspondent + max 3 EJN contact points • National members of EU networks on: • Joint investigation teams • War crimes and crimes against humanity • Asset recovery offices • Combating corruption At least 8 people, for whom tasks related to the ENCS are in addition their national duties. No grouping in a separate body. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  19. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS) The members of the ENCS have access to the Eurojust CMS (see below) ENCS called upon to play a coordinating role at national level, beyond relations with Eurojust > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  20. 1.5. Composition 1.5.6. Eurojust national coordination system (ENCS) National situation List here the names and contact details of ENCS members and indicate how the ENCS operates at national level (e.g. periodic meetings) > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  21. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.1. Who acts on behalf of Eurojust? 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities 1.6.3. Eurojust’s means of action in concrete cases > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  22. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.1. Who acts for Eurojust? • Principle: priority intervention by the national members • Intervention of the College (Article 5) when: • so requested by one or more of the national members concerned by a case dealt with by Eurojust • the case involves investigations or prosecutions which have repercussions at Union level or which might affect Member States other than those directly concerned • a general question relating to the achievement of its objectives is involved > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  23. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities • The 2002 Decision required that each MS defined the powers granted to its national member • The 2008 reform created a (more or less) common base of powers (Article 9a to 9e of the amended Eurojust Decision)  3 categories of powers + broad possibility of derogation for the final two > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  24. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities • Category 1: ‘ordinary’ powers (Art. 9b), i.e. without specific conditions  concerning the processing of requests (transmission, facilitation, supplementary information, follow-up) > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  25. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities • Category 2: delegated powers (Art. 9c): require authorisation on a case-by-case basis from the competent national authority. • Issuing and completing cooperation requests • Executing a cooperation request • Ordering an investigative measure decided upon at a coordination meeting • Authorising and coordinating a controlled delivery > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  26. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities • Category 3: powers in urgent cases (Art. 9c): must be able to be exercised in urgent cases and if the competent authority is not identifiable or contactable: • Authorising and coordinating a controlled delivery • Executing a judicial cooperation request > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  27. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities Derogation for categories 2 (delegated powers) and 3 (powers in urgent cases): AState should not grant such powers if it is contrary to its constitutional rules or certain fundamental aspects of the criminal justice system, but the national member must at least be competent to submit a proposal > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  28. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.2. Action by national members as national authorities National situation List here the powers of the national member of your Member State when acting as national authority > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  29. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3. Eurojust’s means of action • The measures taken by Eurojust are not binding --> but pressure at national level + role of the national members in the national system of origin • Description of the means: • Facilitating contacts • Organisation of operational meetings • Sending requests to national authorities • Judicial cooperation requests • Conflicts of jurisdiction • European arrest warrants 7. The European evidence warrant 8. Joint investigation teams 9. Other > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  30. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part I) A Dutch prosecutor from Amsterdam is investigating a human trafficking ring. His investigation reveals links with Germany and Hungary. If the human trafficking case is submitted to Eurojust, the latter will act through the Netherlands, German and Hungarian national members. They will then contact the national authorities concerned on behalf of Eurojust. The other national members do not, in principle, have to be involved unless the case requires intervention by the College (see below). > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  31. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.1.Facilitating contacts = Key element of judicial cooperation Practical example (part I – b) By approaching his Eurojust national member, the Dutch prosecutor benefits from the direct contact that member makes with the German and Hungarian national members and then from the contact those members make with the national authorities. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  32. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.2. Organising operational meetings --> 3 levels of operational meeting • Level 1 meetings: • periodic meetings of the College dealing with cases in which it has been decided that, given the importance of the case, Eurojust should act as the College. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  33. 1.6. Eurojust’s action • Level 2 meetings: • internal Eurojust meetings involving the national members (and their assistants) of the countries concerned by a specific case. • Level 3 meetings: • meeting involving the national members of the countries concerned by a case + judicial and/or police authorities involved in the investigations in question. • Multiple advantages: logistical and financial support of Eurojust > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  34. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part II – a) • The human trafficking case raises questions of principle concerning conflicts of jurisdiction and the Dutch member wishes to refer it to the College. If the College accepts the request, the case will be closely monitored during the College’s regular meetings. It may also be the focus of level 2 and level 3 meetings. • The national member for the Netherlands, to whom the matter has been referred by the Amsterdam prosecutor, invites the German and Hungarian members to review the case. These Level 2 meetings will be organised on a regular basis. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  35. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part II – b) • The human trafficking case grows in scale and practical coordination problems emerge. It seems, in particular, that a number of simultaneous searches should be conducted in the various States. The Dutch, German and Hungarian national members each invite those leading the ongoing investigations (judges and/or police officers) in their State to a Level 3 meeting. This full-day meeting in The Hague benefits from logistics and interpreting provided via Eurojust, as well as assistance with any travel costs. This enables the simultaneous search operation to be initiated. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  36. 1.6. Eurojust’s action > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  37. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.3. Sending requests to national authorities • Sent by the College or the national member • Non-binding but formal requests (not simply contacts) • Eurojust can request (Articles 6 and 7): • to undertake an investigation or prosecution of specific acts • to accept that one of them may be in a better position to undertake an investigation or to prosecute specific acts • to coordinate between the competent authorities of the Member States concerned • to set up a joint investigation team in keeping with the relevant cooperation instruments • to provide it with any information that is necessary for it to carry out its tasks • to take any other measure justified for the investigation or prosecution > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  38. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part III) The investigation into the human trafficking ring reveals that X heads the criminal organisation responsible for the offences. X is arrested in Germany but the victims are mainly located in Amsterdam. The Dutch and German judges are unable to reach agreement on conducting a prosecution. Eurojust, through the College or through the German Eurojust member, sends a formal request to the German judge asking that the proceedings be transferred to the Netherlands on grounds of the victims’ location and the fact that the most serious acts (forced prostitution) took place in the Netherlands. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  39. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.4. Judicial cooperation requests • Eurojust Decision of 2002: Eurojust may be used as a channel used to transmit cooperation requests between Member States in certain cases. • 2008 Decision strengthening Eurojust: this rule became obsolete as national members received more extensive powers > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  40. 1.6. Eurojust’s action • Transmission of and follow-up to judicial cooperation requests • = ordinary powers (Art. 6b)  no derogation or conditions • The national member may still act as intermediary, including for the transmission and receipt of these requests. • Referral to Eurojust in the event of recurring problems (Article 7(3) of the Decision) > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  41. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part IV – a) It may prove useful, as mentioned above, to conduct simultaneous searches in different Member States. These searches may take place at the initiative of each national authority concerned, but may also be requested by a single national authority. The Dutch prosecutor may therefore issue formal requests for judicial assistance in order to have simultaneous searches conducted in Germany and Hungary. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  42. 1.6. Eurojust’s action Practical example (part IV – b) In this instance, and to ensure proper coordination from the stage when the requests are sent and received, the Dutch prosecutor may transmit the assistance requests to his national member, so that they may transmit them to the national authorities concerned, stressing coordinated execution. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  43. 1.6. Eurojust’s action • Executing and issuing judicial cooperation requests Articles 9c and 9d: • Issuing a judicial cooperation request: on express delegation by the competent authority • Executing a judicial cooperation request: • on express delegation or • in urgent cases if the competent authority cannot be identified or contacted > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  44. 1.6. Eurojust’s action • Executing and issuing judicial cooperation requests Double uncertainty: possibility for each Member State: • to go further than the 2008 decision • to make use of the derogation in Article 9e and therefore not grant such powers > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  45. 1.6. Eurojust’s action c) Execution of investigative measures = to execute a measure in their Member State of origin for the investigation conducted in that State and not to execute a request for judicial cooperation from another Member State Article 9c  double restriction: • An express delegation is required • The investigative measure must have been decided upon at a Eurojust coordination meeting > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  46. 1.6. Eurojust’s action c) Execution of investigative measures Again, double uncertainty: possibility for each Member State: • to go further than the 2008 decision • to make use of the derogation in Article 9e and therefore not grant such powers > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  47. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.5. Conflicts of jurisdiction • 2002 decision: Eurojust may ask a national authority to agree that another authority is better placed to conduct the prosecution • Framework Decision of 23 October 2009 on conflicts of jurisdiction: when two authorities are conducting parallel investigations into the same people and the same offences and fail to agree on resolution of the conflict of jurisdiction  obligation to refer to Eurojust ‘as necessary’ • 2008 Decision strengthening Eurojust (Article 7(2)): automatic referral to the College when two national members fail to agree on a conflict of jurisdiction assurance of having an opinion from Eurojust > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  48. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.6. The European arrest warrant 2002 EAW Framework Decision: • Article 16: in the event of multiple EAWs, possibility of seeking Eurojust’s opinion • Article 17: obligation to inform Eurojust when the fixed time limits for deciding on the execution of the EAW are not met > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  49. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.7. The European evidence warrant 2008 Framework Decision on the European evidence warrant: when a national authority is considering making use of the territoriality clause to refuse execution of a warrant, it must consult Eurojust before taking the decision. If Eurojust's opinion is not followed, the Member State concerned shall inform the Council. > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

  50. 1.6. Eurojust’s action 1.6.3.8. Support for and participation in joint investigation teams Eurojust and the national members have a natural connection with the joint investigation teams, since they were set up for the same types of case (serious, complex, transnational cases) See below > Module 4: Key actors in judicial cooperation > Eurojust

More Related