Legal Remedy Against the Issuing of a European Investigation Order Regarding Hearing of a Witness by Videoconferencing

Abstract

The commentary critically analyses the position of the Court of Justice as expressed in case C-852/19 Gavanozov II. It is pointed out that the requirement to provide a remedy in the issuing State within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter in relation to an EIO concerning a hearing of a witness by videoconference is too far-reaching, as it is an act that does not in itself involve interference with the sphere of individual rights and freedoms. The practical implications of the judgment for European judicial cooperation in criminal matters are considered then. The  requirements that the legal remedy referred to in Article 47 of the Charter should meet were analysed. It was assumed that these are fulfilled when national law provides the possibility for a witness to challenge his or her summons in general, either in writing upon receipt of the summons or orally at the time of appearance before the judge.