20.500.12556/DKUM-98883 Procedural balance or structural disadvantage? Legal remedies and defence rights in European Investigation Order As cross-border crime has increased, obtaining evidence from abroad has become crucial to effective prosecution. EU cross-border cooperation for evidence gathering has evolved from mutual legal assistance to instruments such as the European Investigation Order (EIO), which combines mutual assistance and mutual recognition and has significantly accelerated procedures. However, despite its advanced and structured regulation, the position of the defence in the EIO procedures remains uncertain in some countries. Directive 2014/41/EU does not provide a sufficient legal basis for the defence to issue an EIO independently, nor does it establish an explicit right to appeal against its issuance or execution. Although fundamental rights under the EU Charter and the ECHR apply to EIO proceedings, these standards are broadly framed and allow national discretion. The CJEU has taken a step forward, notably in Gavanozov II, highlighting the importance of legal remedies in EIO proceedings. Nonetheless, national criminal procedures still differ in key aspects, and significant gaps remain at the EU level in ensuring effective defence rights. Z naraščanjem čezmejnega kriminala je pridobivanje dokazov iz tujine postalo eden ključnih vidikov učinkovitega kazenskega pregona. Sodelovanje med državami članicami Evropske unije se je postopoma razvijalo od sistema medsebojne pravne pomoči do uvedbe evropskega preiskovalnega naloga (EPN), ki združuje elemente medsebojne pomoči in načela vzajemnega priznavanja ter je bistveno pospešil in poenostavil pridobivanje dokazov v čezmejnih primerih. Navkljub novi ureditvi pa položaj obrambe v okviru EPN ostaja nejasen in mestoma negotov. Direktiva 2014/41/EU namreč ne zagotavlja zadostne pravne podlage, da bi obramba lahko samostojno izdala EPN, prav tako pa ne določa izrecne pravice do pritožbe zoper njegovo izdajo ali izvršitev. Čeprav se temeljne pravice iz Listine EU in EKČP uporabljajo tudi v postopkih z EPN, so ti standardi oblikovani široko in dopuščajo nacionalno diskrecijo. Sodišče Evropske unije je naredilo korak naprej, zlasti v zadevi Gavanozov II, in poudarilo pomen pravnih sredstev tudi v postopkih z EPN. Kljub temu se nacionalni kazenski postopki še vedno razlikujejo v ključnih vidikih, pomembne vsebinske vrzeli pa pri zagotavljanju učinkovitega varstva pravic obrambe na ravni EU še vedno ostajajo v postopkih z EPN. European Investigation Order mutual recognition adversarial proceedings rights of defence ECHR effective legal remedy true true false Angleški jezik Slovenski jezik Neznano 2026-07-15 03:09:54 2026-07-17 08:02:10 2026-07-18 03:13:02 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2026 0 0 str. 1-47 no. 1 Vol. 18 Jun. 2026 0000-00-00 Zaloznikova NiDoloceno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 2026-06-01 343.1:341 284700931 10.18690/lexonomica.18.1.1-47.2026 1855-7155 1-Kordis.pdf 1-Kordis.pdf 1 A2976331093FC96450F4461D43C5253D bae9a110bce29ecaa9c3071ed84806e5dea66197a3e859a3d2361998ad2d5d64 07cd5775-81a5-11f1-a6d3-00155d580e34 https://dk.um.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=208340 Pravna fakulteta 0 0 0