Observing Gavanozov

In November 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgement in the case of Gavanozov II (C-852/19). The requirement for jurisdictions in the European Union (EU) countries to have legal remedies in place against the issuing of an EIO seeking to have searches, seizures and even witness hearings through videoconferencing has been followed by intense discussions about its effects on national legal frameworks and on judicial cooperation dynamics.

 

The most pressing issues focus on the concept of legal remedy, on the qualities of the authorities competent to afford these remedies, and on the object of such remedies: what are the individual rights at stake, by which decisions are they actually affected and at what point is a remedy necessary or possible (consider that many investigative measures are covered by secrecy)?

 

Moreover, does this judgement imply an obligation of executing authorities in other Member States (MS) to refuse recognition or execution if no legal remedies are available in the issuing MS? Must executing authorities check that there are (adequate) legal remedies in the issuing MS or can (should) they rely mutual trust?