Admissibility of Evidence in EPPO Proceedings
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231154669 |
| Author | Dominik Brodowski |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
Special Issue Article
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2023, Vol. 14(1) 34–42
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20322844231154669
journals.sagepub.com/home/nje
Admissibility of Evidence in
EPPO Proceedings
Dominik Brodowski
Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
Abstract
The issue of cross-border admissibility of evidence is a recurring theme of European Criminal
Justice, and continues to be perceived as a decisive obstacle hindering the effective prosecution and
adjudication of crime. In spite of this, the EPPO Regulation does not include an extensive framework
guaranteeing the cross-border admissibility of evidence. In this article, it is argued that this lacuna is
far less worrisome than it seems: the boundaries set out by EU primary law, in particular Article
325(4) TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), as well as the opportunity of the ECJ to
judge on these boundaries, allow for a sufficient convergence of national laws and practices on the
(in-)admissibility of evidence.
Keywords
EPPO, Admissibility of Evidence, coherence in criminal procedure, convergence
Introduction
In European Criminal Justice, there is a long-standing worry or even fear that evidence, once
obtained in one jurisdiction, is inadmissible as evidence in another jurisdiction. This was already
highlighted in the Tampere conclusions of 1999. Back then, the European Council demanded that
‘evidence lawfully gathered by one Member State’s authorities should be admissible before the
courts of other Member States’.
1
It thereby compared ‘evidence’–wrongly –to marketable
products, although evidence is not a chocolate bar. Following up with this demand, EU primary law
evidence between Member States’(Art. 82(2)(a) TFEU). However, such a Directive has neither
Corresponding author:
Dominik Brodowski, Saarland University, Campus C3 1, Saarbrücken 66041, Germany.
Email: dominik.brodowski@uni-saarland.de
1. Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999 –Presidency Conclusions, B. VI. § 36. On the legacy of the Tampere
conclusions, see Sergio Carrera, Deirdre Curtin and Andrew Geddes (eds), 20 Year Anniversary of the Tampere Programme.
Europeanisation Dynamics of the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (EUI 2020).
To continue reading
Request your trial