Gavanozov (area of freedom, security and justice - Opinion) French Text [2019] EUECJ C-324/17_O (11 April 2019)

Gavanozov (area of freedom, security and justice - Opinion) French Text [2019] EUECJ C-324/17_O (11 April 2019)

Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU precludes national law that does not provide any remedy to challenge the substantive grounds for investigative measures indicated in a European Investigation Order. In the absence of such remedies, a Member State authority cannot issue an EIO. Article 14(2) does not create a direct right to challenge an EIO in the absence of a national remedy. The notion of 'person concerned' includes both the accused and third parties (such as witnesses or persons subject to search/seizure) affected by the investigative measures.

Citation
[2019] EUECJ C-324/17_O
Parties
Accused: Ivan Gavanozov; Referring Court: Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria); Witness/third Party: Y (witness, representative of company X)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Reference (opinion of Advocate General) / Opinion of Advocate General Prior to CJEU Judgment
Outcome
Opinion that Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU precludes Bulgarian law and precludes issuing an EIO in the absence of remedies; Article 14 cannot be invoked directly to create a remedy where none exists in national law; 'person concerned' includes both accused and third parties.
Legal Topics
European Investigation Order, Directive 2014/41/eu, Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Right to Effective Remedy, Mutual Recognition, Rights of Defence, Procedural Autonomy, Equivalence and Effectiveness, Fundamental Rights, Remedies Against Investigative Measures
European Union Law Criminal Law Procedural Law Human Rights European Investigation Order Directive 2014/41/eu Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters Right to Effective Remedy +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Gavanozov

Accused

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria)

Referring Court

Y (witness, representative of company X)

Witness/third Party

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Reference (opinion of Advocate General) / Opinion of Advocate General Prior to CJEU Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU precludes national law that does not provide remedies to challenge the substantive grounds for issuing a European Investigation Order (EIO) involving search, seizure, and witness hearing.
  2. 2 Whether Article 14(2) of Directive 2014/41/EU grants individuals a direct right to challenge an EIO in the absence of a national procedural remedy.
  3. 3 Whether the accused and third parties (such as witnesses or persons subject to search/seizure) are 'persons concerned' under Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU precludes national law that does not provide any remedy to challenge the substantive grounds for investigative measures indicated in a European Investigation Order. In the absence of such remedies, a Member State authority cannot issue an EIO. Article 14(2) does not create a direct right to challenge an EIO in the absence of a national remedy. The notion of 'person concerned' includes both the accused and third parties (such as witnesses or persons subject to search/seizure) affected by the investigative measures.

Court Disposition

Opinion that Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU precludes Bulgarian law and precludes issuing an EIO in the absence of remedies; Article 14 cannot be invoked directly to create a remedy where none exists in national law; 'person concerned' includes both accused and third parties.

Orders

  • Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU precludes national law that does not provide remedies to challenge the substantive grounds for investigative measures in an EIO and precludes issuing an EIO in such circumstances.
  • Article 14 cannot be invoked directly by individuals to create a remedy where none exists in national law for similar procedures.