Evropski preiskovalni nalog – razvoj, novosti in njegova uporaba s strani obrambe: izbrani vidiki

magistrsko delo

Teodora Kordiš (Avtor), Miha Šepec (Mentor), Jan Stajnko (Komentor)

Povzetek

S povečevanjem števila kaznivih dejanj, ki po svoji razsežnosti presegajo meje ene države, je pridobivanje dokazov iz tujine postal eden izmed ključnih vidikov uspešnega pregona. Čezmejno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah se je gradilo postopno. Od sistemov zaprosil, temelječih na Konvenciji o medsebojni pravni pomoči, se je do danes v EU uspel vzpostaviti učinkovit sistem evropskega preiskovalnega naloga, ki združuje tako načelo medsebojne pravne pomoči kot tudi načelo vzajemnega priznavanja. EPN je poenotil in pohitril postopke pridobivanja dokazov iz tujine, ter tako pripomogel k učinkovitejšemu pregonu. Navkljub podrobni ureditvi omenjenega orodja, ostajajo nekatera odprta vprašanje uporabe EPN s strani obrambe. Določbe Direktive 2014/41/EU, v skladu s katero je bil nalog implementiran v države članice, ne dajejo zadostne pravne podlage po kateri bi lahko obramba direktno izdala EPN, brez naknadne potrditve takšne izdaje s strani pravosodnega organa. Dodatno, ni predvidene izrecne pravice do pravnega sredstva za izpodbijanje izdaje ali izvršitve EPN. Določbe direktive ne nalagajo državam članicam obveznost uvedbe drugih pravnih sredstev v postopkih z EPN, razen tistih, ki so po obstoječem nacionalnem redu že na voljo v podobnih domačih primerih. Varstvo in položaj obrambe se, navkljub harmonizaciji z Direktivo 2014/41/EU, precej razlikuje po posameznih državah, saj so dodatne procesne možnosti pri uporabi EPN v prid obrambe na voljo le v državah, ki so te omogočile pri implementaciji omenjene direktive. Čeprav je določen minimalni standard varstva, ki ga dajejo temeljne pravice in svoboščine iz Listine EU in EKČP, tudi za postopke z EPN, so omenjene določbe ohlapne ter dajejo državam članicam velik manevrski prostor, kako izpolniti obveznosti iz teh pravic. Pravica do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva iz EKČP namreč ne daje možnosti izpodbijanja ukrepa predvidenega z EPN pred izvedbo, vendar določa predvsem možnost nekega pravnega sredstva, ki je lahko na voljo tudi kasneje v postopku. V EU se še vedno pojavljajo primeri izdaje in izvršitve EPN v državah, ki ne zagotavljajo niti minimalnega standarda varstva v svojih kazenskih postopkih, zaradi česar je pridobivanje ali posredovanje dokazov na podlagi tako izvedenega EPN lahko vprašljivo. SEU je v zadevi Gavanozov II naredilo korak naprej in izpostavilo pomembnost obstoja pravnega sredstva tudi zoper izdajo EPN v nacionalni zakonodaji posamezne države, da lahko slednja v okviru medsebojnega priznavanja sploh izdaja EPN. Slovenija ob implementaciji ni predvidela posebnih pravnih sredstev v postopkih z EPN. Odsotnost pravic obrambe povezanih z EPN le v delu zapolnjujejo splošne določbe slovenskega kazenskega postopka po ZKP-1. Nasprotno je Italija ob implementaciji določila tudi možnost izpodbijanja potrditve EPN s pravnim sredstvom. Z upoštevanjem dobrih praks držav članic in pravnih ter praktičnih izzivov s katerimi se srečuje obramba, je na voljo še veliko prostora, za ustreznejšo ureditev pravic obrambe v postopkih z EPN v Sloveniji in na ravni EU.

Ključne besede

Evropski preiskovalni nalog;vzajemno priznavanje;kontradiktornost;navzočnost odvetnika;pravice obrambe;EKČP;Evropski nalog za posredovanje elektronskih dokazov;učinkovito pravno sredstvo;

Podatki

Jezik:	Slovenski jezik
Leto izida:	2024
Tipologija:	2.09 - Magistrsko delo
Organizacija:	UM PF - Pravna fakulteta
Založnik:	[T. Kordiš]
UDK:	343.13(100)(043.3)
COBISS:	188027907
Št. ogledov:	30
Št. prenosov:	5
Ocena:	0 (0 glasov)
Metapodatki:

Ostali podatki

Sekundarni jezik:	Angleški jezik
Sekundarni naslov:	European Investigation Order – evolution, novelties, and the use of its rules by the defence: selected aspects
Sekundarni povzetek:	With an increasing number of crimes that venture way beyond the borders of one country, obtaining evidence from abroad has become one of the key aspects of successful prosecution. Cross-border cooperation in criminal matters has been gradually growing from a system of requests, based on the Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance, to the combined application of principle of mutual legal assistance and the principle of mutual recognition, in the new tool for cross-border evidence gathering – European Investigation Order. Despite the detailed regulation of the mentioned tool, some questions about the use of the EIO by the defence remain open. The provisions of Directive 2014/41/EU, by which the order was implemented in the member states, do not provide a sufficient legal basis for the defence to directly issue an EIO without subsequent authorization of such issuance by a national judicial body. Additionally, there is no express right to a legal remedy to challenge the issuance or execution of the EIO. The provisions of the directive in this regard also do not impose the obligation on member states to introduce other legal remedies in proceedings with EIO, apart from those already available in similar domestic procedures. Despite harmonization with Directive 2014/41/EU, legal guarantees differ from country to country, since additional procedural options in favour of the defence for EIO are only available in countries that have enabled them. Although the minimum standard of protection provided by the fundamental rights and freedoms from the EU Charter and the ECHR also applies for procedures with the EIO, the mentioned provisions are broad and give the member states plenty of room for manoeuvring. The right to an effective remedy deriving from ECHR does not give the possibility of contesting the investigative measure, envisaged by the EIO, before its execution, but rather the right recognizes the existence of any legal remedy, which could as well be available even later in the proceedings. There are still cases of issuing and executing EIO in member states that do not provide a minimum standard of protection in their criminal proceedings. Obtaining evidence based on EIO issued or executed in such circumstances is quite controversial. In the case of Gavanozov II, the CJEU took a step forward and highlighted the importance of the existence of a legal remedy against issuing of EIO in the national legislation, so that the county may even issue an EIO within the framework of mutual recognition. When transposing the Directive 2014/41/EU, Slovenia did not foresee a special remedy in relation to the EIO. The absence of defence rights in EIO proceedings, is only in part filled by the general provisions of the Slovenian Criminal Procedure Act. In contrast, the Italian transposition of the directive did establish the possibility of contesting recognized EIO with a legal remedy. Considering the good practices of the member states, also noting the legal and practical challenges that the defence is facing in each individual case, there is still room for additional regulation of the rights of the defence in the proceedings with EIO, whether at a national level in Slovenian legislation or at the EU level.
Sekundarne ključne besede:	European Investigation Order;mutual recognition;adversarial proceedings;presence of a lawyer;rights of defence;ECHR;European Production Order;effective remedy;Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
Vrsta dela (COBISS):	Magistrsko delo/naloga
Komentar na gradivo:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Strani:	1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (69 str.))
ID:	23012149