Slide 1/75 © copyright Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012

Slide 1/75

© c

opyr

ight

Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters

within the European UnionVersion: 3.0

Last updated: 20.12.2012

The European JudicialTraining Network

With the support of the European Union

Slide 2/75

© c

opyr

ight

(logo of the training organiser)

Training organised by(name of training organiser)

on (date) at (place)

Title (of the training)

Version: 2.0Last updated: 31.08.2009

The European JudicialTraining Network

With the support of the European Union

Slide 3/75

© c

opyr

ight

Module 7The pre-trial stage and obtaining evidence

(part II): specific procedures according to types of

investigative measure

Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012

Slide 4/75

© c

opyr

ight

Introduction

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II)

Module 6 = cross-cutting issues and general procedure for obtaining evidence

Module 7 = specific procedures for different investigative measures

Only rules which depart from the general procedure

Slide 5/75

© c

opyr

ight

Contents

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II)

1. Banking information

2. Interception of telecommunications

3. Criminal records

4. Freezing of assets

5. Hearing and appearance in court of witnesses

6. Hearing and appearance in court of an accused person

7. Searches

8. Cross-border surveillance and hot pursuit

9. Infiltration and covert investigations

Slide 6/75

© c

opyr

ight


> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 1. Banking information

1.1. Introduction

Legal instruments: 2001 Protocol to the 2000 Conv., Articles 1-4 + Framework Decision on the European evidence warrant (from January 2011)

Fiche Belge: 4.03

Slide 7/75

© c

opyr

ight



1.1. Introduction

Type of measure:

• Information on bank accounts: identifying a person’s accounts in any bank

• Information on banking transactions: information about an account and transactions during a limited period in the past

• Monitoring banking transactions: monitoring transactions from a specific time

Slide 8/75

© c

opyr

ight



1.2. Scope

In the 2001 Protocol:

1.2.1. Information on bank accts: limitation to serious crimes (4 years in the requesting State and 2 years in the requested State, Europol’s competence or protection of the financial interests of the Community)

1.2.2. Information on banking transactions: no limitations

1.2.3. Monitoring of banking transactions: limitations provided for by the law of the requested State

In the FD on the European evidence warrant: no limitations

Slide 9/75

© c

opyr

ight



1.3. Double criminality

1.2.1. Information on bank accts: same procedure as for searches and seizures

1.2.2. Information on banking transactions: same procedure as for searches and seizures

1.2.3. Monitoring of banking transactions: full application of double criminality

1.4. Mandatory informationBesides the information required in all mutual assistance requests, the 2001 Protocol stipulates obligations to indicate why the information is needed

Slide 10/75

© c

opyr

ight

2. Information extracted from criminal records


2.1. Introduction

Specific legal instrument:

Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 (criminal records)• Implemented by Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009

(European Criminal Records Information System) (ECRIS)

Relevant ‘Fiche Belge’: 405

Slide 11/75

© c

opyr

ight

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 2. Criminal records

2.2. Type of measure:

Transmission of information extracted from the criminal records of a Member State. The request may be made in the context of criminal proceedings, for example to get an idea, at the investigation stage, of the profile of the person concerned or, at the judgment stage, in order to apply the rules on reoffending.National laws on criminal records vary greatly

• which offences are recorded?

• legal and natural persons?

• only final judgments?

• only criminal convictions?


Slide 12/75

© c

opyr

ight


2.3. Centralisation of information on convictions in the Member State of nationality

The challenge is not only how to obtain the information, but also knowing which State to obtain it from.

the State where conviction took place (= the State of conviction) notifies it to the State of the convicted person’s nationality (= State of nationality).

State of nationality (central authority) must retain the data in question to be able to transmit it to the central criminal record of another Member State requesting the information.


Slide 13/75

© c

opyr

ight


• The principle of centralising convictions is coupled with an interconnection of the criminal records ECRIS (European Criminal Records Information System), in operation since April 2012.• no direct access to criminal records: an intervention will be required each

time in the Member State of conviction

Value-added:• electronic exchange,• standardisation obligation for Member States (of conviction and

nationality) to use the equivalence tables (offence and penalty) to transmit convictions.


2.4. The ECRIS system: interconnection and standardisation

Slide 14/75

© c

opyr

ight


2.5. Future developments

Establishment of a ‘European index’ for nationals of third countries convicted in one of the Member States (to identify the State of conviction).


Slide 15/75

© c

opyr

ight



2.6. Transmission channel

Exception to the rule of direct contacts: here, everything goes via a central authority in each Member State and transmission from one State to another is done electronically via ECRIS

National situationIndicate here the contact details of the central authority for your State

Slide 16/75

© c

opyr

ight



2.7. Form of the request

Transmission of the request and the response between the central authority of the requesting State and that of the requested State is, however, standardised and electronic: the information required is laid down by Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA.

2.8. Time limits: 10 days max

National situationIndicate here how to ask your central authority to request consultation of the

criminal records of another Member State.

Slide 17/75

© c

opyr

ight



2.9. Depending on the person involved

2.6.1. EU nationalsThe requesting authority requests the State of nationality and obtains information on convictions handed down:

• in the requested State (= the State of nationality here) • in any other EU Member State (immediate notification under the Member

State of nationality principle)• in any Member State of the Council of Europe (notification once per year

under the Member State of nationality principle)• where applicable, in another Member State, but this depends on relations

between that State and the requested State.

Slide 18/75

© c

opyr

ight



2.6.2. National of a (non-EU) third country

• Possibility of directly addressing the State of nationality, but legal framework for cooperation uncertain

• If the person is resident in the EU, advisable to contact the Member States

Work underway to create, potentially, a European index of third country nationals convicted in EU territory to determine which Member State to contact

Slide 19/75

© c

opyr

ight



Practical example (part I)

X, of German nationality, is convicted in Italy of drugs trafficking. This conviction is entered into the Italian criminal records database. Pursuant to Article 22 of the 1959 Convention and Article 2 of Decision 2005/876/JHA (under the new procedure, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA), the Italian central authority notifies the conviction to the German central authority. The effect of this notification depends on national law and practice in Germany.

[ex_mod7_V10_cas_1.1]

Slide 20/75

© c

opyr

ight



Practical example (part II)

After having served his sentence for the offences committed in Italy, X leaves and goes to live in Slovenia. An investigation is opened by a Slovenian prosecutor against X for other drugs trafficking offences committed in Slovenia. As part of that investigation the Slovenian prosecutor wishes to assess the danger posed by the person concerned; he contacts his central authority and asks to consult the German criminal records database (Member State of nationality).


Slide 21/75

© c

opyr

ight



Practical example (part III)

The Slovenian central authority transmits the request to the German central authority and receives a response within 10 days. The Slovenian central authority is assured of receiving, via the German central authority, the information relating to the conviction handed down in Italy.

At the trial stage this information will have to be taken into account by the Slovenian judge in order to correctly apply the rules on repeat offences (see Module 8)


Slide 22/75

© c

opyr

ight

3. Freezing property

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 3. Freezing property

3.1. Introduction

Specific legal instrument:

• Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence

• Applicable since 2 August 2005 BUT:

• Not all Member States have yet taken steps to implement it (as at 31 Dec 2012, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal had not)

• Rarely used in practice

• Does not replace mutual legal assistance (at the discretion of the requesting or issuing authority)

Slide 23/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.1. Introduction

Relevant ‘Fiche Belge’: 4.01, 4.02.

National situationList here references from your national legislation

implementing the FD

Slide 24/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.2. Purpose of the measure

FD on the freezing of property covers:• obtaining evidence (pre-trial)• seizure for the purposes of confiscation (during trial)Only obtaining evidence is discussed here (see Module 10 for confiscation) = preventive seizure, provisional measure in urgent cases

Slide 25/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.3. Double criminality

Rules the same as for the European arrest warrant:• In principle, DC is maintained• But in reality largely abolished, provided the following 2 conditions are met:

o offence punishable by a custodial sentence of at least 3 yearso included in a list of 32 categories of offences.

NB: if verification of DC does not take place, this ‘contaminates’ the mutual legal assistance that will be used then to transfer this property to the issuing State no longer verification of DC

Slide 26/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.4. Form

• Original decision + certificate (annexed to the FD)• Only the certificate must be translated

3.4. Transmission of the order and the certificate

In principle, direct contacts between local judicial authorities, except for the United Kingdom and Ireland (central authorities) In reality, some other States require going via a central authority

Slide 27/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.4. Transmission of the order and the certificate

How do you identify the authority competent (locally) to receive the certificate and order?• Atlas does not yet cover this point (see Module 4).• See Annex C: Table of implementation of the FD, indicating the authorities

competent to receive the order and the certificate

National situationIndicate here the type of judicial authority competent in your

State:• to issue an order freezing property• to receive and execute a certificate and an order

Slide 28/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.5. Execution of the order

Within 24 hrs ‘if possible’ should be at least the standard time limit under implementing national legislation

3.6. Grounds for refusal

Exhaustive list of grounds for refusal:• Certificate that is missing, incomplete or clearly does not correspond to the

order• Privilege or immunity under the law of the executing State• Ne bis in idem clearly infringed• Double criminality if applicable + no exception for fiscal offence

Slide 29/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.8. Grounds for postponing execution

cf. Art. 9 of the FD

3.9. Legal remedies in the executing State

Cannot be suspensive (emergency measure)

Slide 30/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.10. Transfer of frozen property

1. The certificate must therefore, in principle, be accompanied by a request for transfer:• Request subject to the mutual legal assistance procedure• However, the transfer request cannot be subject to verification of double criminality if

this was also prohibited for consideration of the freezing order

2. It is also possible to not attach a request for mutual assistance aimed at transferring the property. • In this case, it is necessary to indicate in the certificate when this mutual assistance

request may be submitted. In such cases, the issuing authority loses the benefit of waiving double criminality for consideration of the transfer request.

Slide 31/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.11. Practical support: asset recovery authorities

• Decision 2007/845/JHA: Each Member State must have set up or designated a ‘national Asset Recovery Office, for the purposes of the facilitation of the tracing and identification of proceeds of crime and other crime related property which may become the object of a freezing, seizure or confiscation order made by a competent judicial authority in the course of criminal or, as far as possible under the national law of the Member State concerned, civil proceedings’

• Brought together within an informal network, CARIN (Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network), whose secretariat is based at Europol.

Slide 32/75

© c

opyr

ight



3.11. Practical support: asset recovery authorities

• Cooperate through police cooperation. Their work is very useful in the judicial phase in identifying property to be frozen, gaining a better understanding of the national system of the Member State with which cooperation is required and addressing a number of practical issues, such as procedure for the frozen property.

National situationIndicate here the asset recovery office for your State and its contact details

Slide 33/75

© c

opyr

ight

4. Hearing of witnesses

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 4. Hearing of witnesses

4.1. Introduction

Legal instruments: • Articles 3(2) and 8-12 of the 1959 Convention• Articles 10 and 11 of the 2000 Convention

Fiches Belges: 6.01, 6.13.

4.2. Purpose of the measure

There are various procedures, depending on the case:• Hearing/appearance of the witness (whether or not in custody) or expert in the territory of

the requesting State• Hearing/appearance of the witness or expert in the territory of the requested State,

including hearing via videoconference and telephone conference• Procedure applicable in the Member State of transit in the event of transfer

Slide 34/75

© c

opyr

ight



4.3. Hearing/appearance of the witness or expert in the territory of the requesting State

4.3.1. General rule of immunity (specialty)

4.3.2. If the witness is at liberty:

No specific rule, other than costs

4.3.3. If the witness is in custody

• Transfer for the purposes of investigation (Article of the 1959 Conv.)

• Broad grounds for refusal

• Consent may be required

Slide 35/75

© c

opyr

ight



4.4. Hearing/appearance in court in the territory of the requested State of a witness or expert (who is already present in the territory of that State)

4.4.1. General rule:

No penalty against the person refusing to appear

4.4.2. Hearing without specific technical means

No specific rule. The authorities must agree on the arrangements for the hearing, including the participation of agents and judicial officers

Slide 36/75

© c

opyr

ight



4.4. Hearing/appearance of the witness or expert in the territory of the requested State

4.4.3. Hearing by video or telephone conference

Articles 10 and 11 of the 2000 Conv.

4.4.3.1. Common rules

Only if the use of such technical means is not contrary to the fundamental laws of the requested State

Slide 37/75

© c

opyr

ight




(4.4.3.1. Common rules)

• A judicial authority of the requested Member State shall be present during the hearing, where necessary assisted by an interpreter

• Measures for the protection of the person to be heard shall be agreed, where necessary, between the competent authorities of the requesting and the requested Member States

• The hearing shall be conducted directly by, or under the direction of, the judicial authority of the requesting Member State

• Assistance of an interpreter

Slide 38/75

© c

opyr

ight




(4.4.3.1. Common rules)

• The person to be heard may claim the right not to testify which would accrue to him or her under the law of either the requested or the requesting Member State

• the requesting Member State applies its national law on refusal to testify and on false statements

• all costs (equipment, interpreter, remuneration of expert) shall be refunded by the requesting State unless the requested State waives the refunding of some or all of these expenses

Slide 39/75

© c

opyr

ight




4.4.3.2. Hearing by videoconference

• The consent of the person concerned is not a prerequisite • The request for mutual assistance must indicate why appearance in

person is not suitable or not possible• A report must be drawn up

Slide 40/75

© c

opyr

ight




4.4.3.2. Hearing by videoconference

National situationIndicate here whether hearing by videoconference is:

• expressly provided for in your national law • not expressly provided for but possible• would be contrary to the fundamental principles of your law

Also indicate, if applicable, how to find out more about using the technical means available.

Slide 41/75

© c

opyr

ight




4.4.3.3. Hearing by telephone conference

The consent of the person is necessary and must be included in the request for mutual assistance.

National situationIndicate here whether hearing by telephone conference is:

• expressly provided for in your national law • not expressly provided for but possible• would be contrary to the fundamental principles of your law

Also indicate, if applicable, how to find out more about using the technical means available.

Slide 42/75

© c

opyr

ight



4.4. Procedure in the Member State of transit

Procedure laid down by Article 11 of the 1959 Convention but unclear:

• Form of the request: a mutual legal assistance request may be necessary (uncertain)

• General grounds for refusal apply• Article 11 explicitly refers to the channel of the ministries of justice: the

rule of direct contact between judicial authorities should also prevail here.• any State may refuse to grant transit of its own nationals (anachronistic in

light of the EAW)• If it has agreed to the transit, the Member State of transit must keep the

person in custody during travel

Slide 43/75

© c

opyr

ight

5. Hearing of the accused

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 5. Hearing of the accused

5.1. Introduction

Specific instruments:- Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the 2000 Convention

Relevant ‘Fiche Belge’: 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12

Purpose of the measure:• Hearing in the territory of the requested State of a person being

prosecuted by the requesting State• Appearance in court in the territory of the requested State of the

accused already in custody in the requesting State

Slide 44/75

© c

opyr

ight



5.2. Hearing in the territory of the requested State of a person being prosecuted by the requesting State

Not always a European arrest warrant:

• Execution of the EAW is refused

• EAW not issued because it is not prudent or not possible

Slide 45/75

© c

opyr

ight



5.2. Hearing in the territory of the requested State of a person being prosecuted by the requesting State

5.2.1. Hearing without specific technical meansNo rule provided for.

5.2.2. Hearing by videoconference

Possibility of using the procedure provided for witnesses but• the requested State is always free to refuse• the consent of the person concerned is required.• reference to national laws and the European Convention on Human Rights

5.2.3. Hearing by telephone conference Nothing provided for, obstacles as regards rights of the defendant

Slide 46/75

© c

opyr

ight



5.3. Appearance in the territory of the requesting State by the person in custody in the territory of the requested State

Article 11 of the 1959 Convention on mutual legal assistance provides for the temporary transfer of a person in custody in the territory of the requested State to the requesting State in order to be heard as part of proceedings against them.

Article 18 of FD 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the EAW also authorises this, but does not stipulate conditions.

Slide 47/75

© c

opyr

ight



5.3. Appearance in the territory of the requesting State by the person in custody in the territory of the requested State

- Grounds for refusal (including the consent of the person)

- Costs borne by the requesting State

- General rule of immunity for acts not referred to the transfer request

Slide 48/75

© c

opyr

ight



5.4. Appearance in court in the territory of the requested State of the accused already in custody in the requesting State

Article 9 of the 2000 Convention: requesting State A wishes an accused person, in custody in its own territory, to be transferred to the territory of requested Member State B as part of an investigative measure requested by State A but which must take place in State B.

Example: a Hungarian judicial officer wishes, as part of his investigation, to reconstruct certain events that took place in Germany. The Hungarian judicial officer wishes the accused, who is in custody in Hungary, to be present at this reconstruction.

Slide 49/75

© c

opyr

ight




• An agreement containing the transfer arrangements is necessary• The period in custody in the territory of the requested Member State is

deducted• The requested State has an obligation to keep the person in custody• Travelling and custody expenses are borne by the requesting State• General rule of immunity (reference to Art. 12 of the 1959 Convention)

Slide 50/75

© c

opyr

ight




National situation

Each Member State may declare that consent will be required, or will be required under certain conditions indicated in the declaration. Indicate here whether your State has made such a declaration.

Slide 51/75

© c

opyr

ight

6. Searches

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 6. Searches

6.1. Introduction

Specific instruments: • Article 5 of the 1959 Convention and Article 51 of the Schengen

Convention• Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European Evidence Warrant, in

principle applicable from 19 January 2011, but doubts as to its use in practice. Only the mutual legal assistance procedure will be discussed here, given that this procedure may continue to be used when the European evidence warrant is applicable.

Relevant ‘Fiche Belge’: 5.01

Purpose of the measure: search is a coercive measure whereby a competent authority enters private premises in order to establish an offence or gather evidence.

Slide 52/75

© c

opyr

ight

6. Searches


6.2. Specific procedure

General procedure, save for the clarification concerning the double criminality requirement (see Module 1)

Reminder: Member States may:

• waive the double criminality rule; or• apply double criminality without reference to a minimum sentence; or• if they apply double criminality with a minimum penalty, require that the

penalty in question is up to six months.

Slide 53/75

© c

opyr

ight

6. Searches


Practical example

A Hungarian judge wishes to have a search executed in France. By consulting the appropriate ‘Fiche’, he will be able to identify some essential conditions under French law. He will learn, for example, that ‘searches are only authorised during the day, more specifically between 06:00 and 21:00 hours, although operations started during the day may continue into the night’.

[ex_mod7_V10_perquis_1]

6.3. Practical aspects

• Differences between national laws• Advisable to consult the ‘Fiche Belge’ on searches to establish the basic

conditions in the requested State.

Slide 54/75

© c

opyr

ight

6. Searches


6.3. Practical aspects

Conducting simultaneous searches in different places:

• simultaneous searches in the same country: consult ‘Atlas’ on the EJN website (see Module 4), click on ‘Unknown location or more than one location’ usually directed to an authority with specific coordination functions. The requesting authority may also get in touch with the EJN contact points.

• simultaneous searches in several different Member States: this is typically a case for referral to Eurojust is (see Module 4).

Slide 55/75

© c

opyr

ight


> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 7. Telecoms interception

7.1. Introduction

Type of measure:

• No definition of ‘telecommunications’

• Does not include simple locating or identifying less intrusive on privacy normal procedure

Fiche Belge: 1.01

Legal instruments: Articles 17-22 of the 2000 Convention

• Creates an explicit legal basis and procedure for mutual assistance in this sector: possible before but procedure uncertain

• Addresses certain technical aspects linked to technological changes.

Slide 56/75

© c

opyr

ight



7.2. Legal framework too complex – being simplified

Articles 17 to 22 of the 2000 Convention are very obscure

Discussions on the EIO Directive have clarified the situation and are already having an impact

Slide 57/75

© c

opyr

ight




7.2.1. Immediate transmission is only a technicalityImmediate Transmission = ‘diversion’ of communications to the requested State it is then there that the interception and recording takes place in practice

The 2000 Convention has established a very complicated system (grounds for refusal vary depending on whether or not there is immediate transmission), so this solution is rarely used. But very useful solution in future.

In the EIO Directive, immediate transmission is merely a technicality that does not affect the procedure read the 2000 Convention in this regard

Slide 58/75

© c

opyr

ight




7.2.2. More and more situations where the requested State is not the State where the target is locatedThe 2000 Convention is visionary on this point, even if the situations that motivated its drafting are not totally pertinent.

In the new telecommunications landscape, the data necessary for interception are less and less present in the State in which the telecommunication took place.

2 relationships:

- Between the requesting State and the State able to provide the technical assistance (whether or not the subject is located there);

- Between the requesting State and the State where the subject is located but which is not able to provide the technical assistance

Slide 59/75

© c

opyr

ight



7.3. Relations with the State providing technical assistance

- If several States can provide technical assistance, priority given to the that where the person is located: but for the remainder, location of the person unimportant

- Mutual legal assistance procedure but with supplementary conditions/formalities

- Broader grounds for refusal: execution of the request is only mandatory ‘where the requested measure would be taken by it in a similar national case’.

Slide 60/75

© c

opyr

ight



7.5. Person’s right to be informed of the interception

- Not referred to in the 2000 Convention depends on national law.

- If a judicial authority (requesting, requested or notified) plans on providing such information, it should first contact the other judicial authority involved.

Slide 61/75

© c

opyr

ight



7.4. Relationship with the State where the person is located but which is not providing technical assistance

- This situation is unusual because it is geographically where the invasion of privacy takes place but no investigative measure is actually executed;

- Article 20 of the 2000 Conv. provides for a notification system interception can take place provided the other State does not refuse.

Slide 62/75

© c

opyr

ight

8. Surveillance and hot pursuit

> Module 7: Obtaining evidence (II) > 8. Surveillance and hot pursuit

8.1. Introduction

Specific instrument: Articles 40 and 41 of the Schengen Convention

Relevant ‘Fiche Belge’: 8.01, 8.02 and 8.03

Purpose of the measure:

• possibilities for the authorities of a Member State to continue surveillance or hot pursuit of an individual beyond its national border.

• land, sea or air borders

Slide 63/75

© c

opyr

ight



8.1. Member States concerned

• Only between the member countries of the Schengen area + United Kingdom

• Surveillance and pursuit are possible with/between other States, provided frameworks other than the Schengen Convention exist

National situation

If your State is not a Schengen State or has borders with a State that is not a Schengen State, indicate to what extent cross-border surveillance and/or hot pursuit are possible outside the system of the Schengen Convention.

Slide 64/75

© c

opyr

ight



8.1. Member States concerned

NB: bilateral cooperation may involve rules more ambitious than those of the Schengen Convention (e.g. Benelux Treaty)

National situation

If rules more favourable than those of the Schengen Convention apply in relations between your State and other EU border States, indicate here their legal basis and how this system differs from that of the Schengen Convention.

Slide 65/75

© c

opyr

ight



8.2. Cross-border surveillance

Practical example

In State A, a person placed under surveillance in connection with a criminal investigation gets into a vehicle that is tailed by officers of State A and crosses the border between State A and State B.

Slide 66/75

© c

opyr

ight




8.2.1. Requirement of a mutual legal assistance request

1. A preliminary request is required in principle except in urgent cases, in which case

• crossing the border must be communicated immediately• the mutual assistance request must be transmitted

‘without delay’2. A mutual legal assistance request is required (Article 40 of the Schengen

Convention)Disagreement over the scope of the term police or judicial

cooperation?• Must the request be signed by a judicial authority? => No solution to date

Slide 67/75

© c

opyr

ight




8.2.1. Requirement of a mutual legal assistance request2. A mutual legal assistance request is required (Article 40 of the Schengen

Convention)National situationIndicate here the situation in your State:

• Where your State is the requested State, is there a requirement for the surveillance request to be signed by a judicial authority?

• Where your State is the requesting State, is it stipulated that surveillance requests must be signed by a judicial authority? If not, is this still possible if the requested State so requests?

Slide 68/75

© c

opyr

ight




8.2.2. Person involved

The surveillance must concern:• a person suspected of involvement in an offence, or• a person in respect of whom there is valid reason to believe that he

or she can assist in identifying or tracing such a person.

8.2.3. Offence involved

• the offence must be extraditable• in addition, urgent surveillance is only authorised for a limited, albeit

fairly broad, list of acts

Slide 69/75

© c

opyr

ight




8.2.4. Other principal rules

• The agents of State A must comply with the law of State B and obey the instructions of its agents.

• Wearing uniform is not obligatory but the agents must be able to prove that they are acting in an official capacity.

• Carrying service weapons is permitted, but their use is only authorised in cases of legitimate self-defence.

• Entry into private homes and premises not accessible to the public is prohibited.

• The agents carrying out the surveillance may neither challenge nor arrest the person under surveillance

Slide 70/75

© c

opyr

ight




8.2.4. Surveillance using a transmitter

• The Schengen Convention does not address the question of remote surveillance through the placement of a transmitter.

• The State in whose territory the person is travelling has no means of knowing that the surveillance is taking place; not merely a theoretical question.

=> if the surveillance produces important evidence for the investigation, may create problems as regards the evidence’s admissibility.

• it is therefore advisable, even in this instance, to observe the conditions laid down in Article 40.

Slide 71/75

© c

opyr

ight



8.3. Cross-border hot pursuit

Article 41 of the Schengen Convention:

• also allows an agent of State A to enter the territory of State B

• objective: arrest of a person caught in the act of committing an offence or escaping.

• may therefore only concern a person who has committed or is suspected of having committed the offence.

Slide 72/75

© c

opyr

ight




• In principle: no right to apprehend

• The law of the State B applies to administrative arrest: Article 41(6) states that ‘if the person is not a national of the Contracting Party in whose territory the person was arrested, that person shall be released no later than six hours after the arrest was made, not including the hours between midnight and 9.00 a.m., unless the competent local authorities have previously received a request for that person's provisional arrest for the purposes of extradition in any form whatsoever’.

• Reference to nationals is anachronistic, given the European arrest warrant

Slide 73/75

© c

opyr

ight




• State B must be notified no later than the time the border is crossed.• Hot pursuit may take place solely over land borders.• Pursuit is only authorised for offences of a certain severity• The agents carrying out the pursuit must report to the locally

competent authorities of State B regarding their mission, even if no person has been apprehended.

• The agents carrying out the pursuit must be able to be identified as legitimate officers, either by a device placed on their vehicle (such as a flashing light) or by a distinctive sign on their person (uniform or armband).

• Entry into private homes and premises is prohibited.• Carrying service weapons is permitted, but their use is only authorised

in cases of legitimate self-defence.

Slide 74/75

© c

opyr

ight



9.1. Introduction

Specific instrument: Art. 14 of the 2000 Convention.

Relevant ‘Fiche Belge’: 2.01, 2.02.

Purpose of the measure:

• Developing lasting relationships between an agent acting under false identity and one or more persons suspected of criminal acts.

• Investigations into crime by officers acting under covert or false identity (Article 14(1) of the 2000 Convention).

• This does not refer to infiltration by a person other than an officer or agent.

Slide 75/75

© c

opyr

ight



9.1. Specific rules

• Article 14 of the 2000 Convention: simply provides a legal basis• No obligation for the requested State to accept the mutual

assistance request. • If the request is accepted, the operation is conducted in

accordance with the national law and procedures of the Member State in whose territory it takes place.

=> In practice: • practical and substantive aspects of this type of operation and• differences between national laws:

- whether it is possible to use infiltration by an officer of the requesting State on the territory of the requested State- the offences for which infiltration may be authorised- the commission of offences in connection with infiltration

The

cont

ents

and

opi

nion

s ex

pres

sed

here

in a

re s

olel

y th

at o

f the

EJT

N, a

nd th

e Eu

rope

an C

omm

issio

n ca

nnot

be

held

resp

onsib

le fo

r an

y us

e th

at m

ay b

e m

ade

of th

ese

cont

ents

and

opi

nion

s.

Documents

Slide 1/75 © copyright Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012