M.N. (EncroChat) (Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Taking of evidence already in the possession of the competent authorities of the executing State - Encrypted telecommunications service - Judgment) French Text [2024] EUECJ C-670/22 (30 April 2024)

M.N. (EncroChat) (Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Taking of evidence already in the possession of the competent authorities of the executing State - Encrypted telecommunications service - Judgment) French Text [2024] EUECJ C-670/22 (30 April 2024)

A European Investigation Order for the transmission of evidence already in the possession of the executing State does not have to be issued by a judge if, under the law of the issuing State, a prosecutor is competent to order such transmission. The necessity and proportionality requirements of Directive 2014/41/EU must be met, but the Directive does not require individualized suspicion for each affected person unless national law so provides. Evidence obtained in violation of EU law is not automatically inadmissible; national rules on exclusion apply, provided they respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Notification requirements for cross-border interception of...

Citation
[2024] EUECJ C-670/22
Parties
Defendant: M. N.; Prosecutor: Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
30 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Reference (article 267 Tfeu) / Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (grand Chamber)
Outcome
Questions answered; preliminary reference disposed of.
Legal Topics
European Investigation Order, Evidence, Encrypted Communications, Cross Border Criminal Procedure, Fundamental Rights
Criminal Law European Union Law Judicial Cooperation European Investigation Order Evidence Encrypted Communications Cross Border Criminal Procedure Fundamental Rights

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. N.

Defendant

Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Reference (article 267 Tfeu) / Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (grand Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a European Investigation Order (EIO) for evidence already in possession of the executing State must be issued by a judge if, under the law of the issuing State, initial collection would require judicial authorization;
  2. 2 Whether the EIO must meet necessity and proportionality requirements for all affected individuals;
  3. 3 Whether the EIO can be issued by a prosecutor if national law allows;

Ratio Decidendi

A European Investigation Order for the transmission of evidence already in the possession of the executing State does not have to be issued by a judge if, under the law of the issuing State, a prosecutor is competent to order such transmission. The necessity and proportionality requirements of Directive 2014/41/EU must be met, but the Directive does not require individualized suspicion for each affected person unless national law so provides. Evidence obtained in violation of EU law is not automatically inadmissible; national rules on exclusion apply, provided they respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Notification requirements for cross-border interception of...

Court Disposition

Questions answered; preliminary reference disposed of.

Orders

  • A European Investigation Order for transmission of evidence already in possession of the executing State need not be issued by a judge if a prosecutor is competent under national law.
  • Necessity and proportionality must be assessed as per Directive 2014/41/EU, but individualized suspicion is not always required.