Gavanozov II (Judgment) French Text [2021] EUECJ C-852/19 (11 November 2021)

Gavanozov II (Judgment) French Text [2021] EUECJ C-852/19 (11 November 2021)

Directive 2014/41/EU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, precludes national legislation that does not provide any remedy against the issuance of a European Investigation Order for searches, seizures, or witness hearings by videoconference. The right to an effective remedy requires that persons affected by such measures must be able to challenge their necessity and legality before a court in the issuing Member State. In the absence of such remedies, the issuance and execution of an EIO is not compatible with EU law.

Citation
[2021] EUECJ C-852/19
Parties
Accused: Ivan Gavanozov; Referring Court: Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (tribunal pénal spécialisé, Bulgarie)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (renvoi Préjudiciel) / Judgment
Outcome
The Court held that EU law precludes national legislation that does not provide remedies against the issuance of an EIO for searches, seizures, or witness hearings by videoconference, and precludes the issuance of such EIOs under such legislation.
Legal Topics
European Investigation Order, Right to Effective Remedy, Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Safeguards
Criminal Law European Union Law Human Rights Law European Investigation Order Right to Effective Remedy Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters Fundamental Rights Procedural Safeguards

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Gavanozov

Accused

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (tribunal pénal spécialisé, Bulgarie)

Referring Court

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (renvoi Préjudiciel) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether national law that provides no remedy against the issuance of a European Investigation Order (EIO) for searches, seizures, or witness hearings by videoconference is compatible with Directive 2014/41/EU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
  2. 2 Whether an EIO can be issued under such national law.

Ratio Decidendi

Directive 2014/41/EU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, precludes national legislation that does not provide any remedy against the issuance of a European Investigation Order for searches, seizures, or witness hearings by videoconference. The right to an effective remedy requires that persons affected by such measures must be able to challenge their necessity and legality before a court in the issuing Member State. In the absence of such remedies, the issuance and execution of an EIO is not compatible with EU law.

Court Disposition

The Court held that EU law precludes national legislation that does not provide remedies against the issuance of an EIO for searches, seizures, or witness hearings by videoconference, and precludes the issuance of such EIOs under such legislation.

Orders

  • Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU, read with Article 24(7) of the Directive and Article 47 of the Charter, precludes national law that does not provide remedies against the issuance of an EIO for searches, seizures, or witness hearings by videoconference.
  • Article 6 of Directive 2014/41/EU, read with Article 47 of the Charter and Article 4(3) TEU, precludes the issuance of an EIO for such measures where no remedy exists in the issuing Member State.