The European investigation order : the pinnacle tool to fighting cross-border crime?

Abstract

Chapter one sets the scene for the topics tackled in this thesis, by introducing and explaining the principles of mutual legal assistance and mutual recognition orders, and how we have shifted from using the principle of mutual legal assistance, to today, using the principle of mutual recognition. The chapter continues with analysing all the different instruments of mutual recognition, that is to say, analysing the European Arrest Warrant, Freezing Orders, Confiscation Orders, Financial Penalties, the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, Probation Measures, Alternative Sanctions, as well as the European Supervision Order, the role of Joint Investigative Teams, together with the European Evidence Warrant. The chapter then ends with the advent to, and the legal development of the concept of the European Investigation Order. Chapter two explores the legal implications and the legal difficulties of the EIO, not only when seen by itself, but also when seen in conjunction with local legislation. Legal implications such as the fact that the EIO is a single instrument which encompasses all and which has a wide scope amongst others, as well as legal difficulties, such as those difficulties which effect the admissibility of evidence, as well as the fact that there is no mode of challenging or reviewing the decision taken pursuant to an EIO. Chapter three analysis the human rights aspect of EIO, not solely focusing on the rights of the defence, but also shedding light on the possible human rights aspect of both the victim, as well as the witness in the case at hand. A thorough analysis of all the human rights from a defence rights perspective is taken into consideration, and the fact that such specific rights are not mentioned specifically within the directive of the EIO is frowned upon. Likewise, a comprehensive analysis of all the victims and witnesses rights are taken into consideration, highlighting the fact that these are not specifically provided for within the directive. Chapter four sheds light on the fact that it is impossible for the EIO to work alone, and to fight successfully this cross-border crime phenomenon. In view of this, an analysis of various European Agencies, such as Europol, Eurojust, EPPO and OLAF, is performed, and the possibilities of how these agencies can work within the equation of the EIO is examined. This chapter ends by seeing the possibilities as to how the Malta Police Force can help within this EIO equation, to ultimately achieve the aims of fighting cross-border crime. Based on two European Law Academy (ERA) conferences in February and March of 2018, Chapter five provides a comparative analysis of how the EIO works in alternative member states of the European Union, such as Belgium, Germany, Hungary, United Kingdom, Portugal, France and ultimately Malta. After examining this comparative analysis, possibilities on whether Malta should take on certain suggestions are taken into consideration. A conclusion is then drawn on whether, after analysing all these perspectives of the EIO, such EIO is actually the pinnacle tool to fighting cross-border crime or not.