Key Benefits:
See the copyright notice Conditions of use .
In accordance with the decision of the Parliament:
For the European Evidence Warrant, Council Framework Decision 2008 /978/JHA of the Council Framework Decision 2008 /978/JHA of the Council Framework Decision 2008 /978/JHA Framework decision , the provisions of the legislation are the law to be followed, subject to this law.
In accordance with this Act and Framework Decision:
(1) Recognise and implement the decision adopted by the competent authority of another Member State of the European Union within the meaning of the Framework Decision and in accordance with the Framework Decision, hereinafter referred to as: The evidence warrant ; and
(2) shall be sent to the other Member State of the European Union for enforcement of the evidence warrant issued by the competent authority of Finland for the purposes of preliminary investigations, prosecutions or proceedings pending before the General Court.
Article 4 of the Framework Decision provides for the scope of the transfer of evidence. The warrant shall not be issued for the purpose of obtaining evidence or real-time information or any other evidence referred to in Article 4 (2) of the Framework Decision. However, it may be provided for information on such evidence if the information is held by the executing authority prior to the issuing of the order. The transfer of information requested from Finland is conditional on the inclusion of information in the personal register of the police, customs or border guards. The exchange of information extracted from the criminal record shall be regulated separately. By way of derogation from Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Framework Decision, the evidence warrant may relate to the acquisition of evidence obtained or to the persons present in the presence of witnesses at that time Under the conditions laid down in Article 4 (5) and (6).
The warrant shall be issued pursuant to Article 6 of the Framework Decision, as required by Article 6 of the Framework Decision (OJ L 350, 30.12.2008).
Contacts in the transmission and implementation of the evidence warrant shall be carried out directly between the issuing and executing authority, subject to Article 8 (2) or (3) or (2) of the Framework Decision.
The central authority referred to in Article 8 (2) of the Framework Decision is the Finnish Ministry of Justice. It is for the Ministry of Justice to assist the competent authorities in contacts with the transmission and implementation of the evidence warrant. If the competent authority cannot be determined or if there is another specific reason, the evidence warrant may be submitted through the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice shall, without delay, forward the order to the executing authority.
The responsibility of the public prosecutor's office in relation to the enforcement of the warrant shall be responsible for:
(1) the Prosecutor-General of the Helsinki District Court, if the proof referred to in the order is situated in the territory of the District Court of Helsinki;
2) An engagement prosecutor in the jurisdiction of the Oulu District Court, if the proof referred to in the order is situated in the territory of the Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi;
(3) If the proof referred to in the order is situated in the territory of the district of Turku or Vaasa, the State Prosecutor of the District Court of Pirkanmaa, if the proof referred to in the order is situated;
(4) An engagement prosecutor in the jurisdiction of North Savo district court if the proof provided for in the order is situated in the territory of the District Court of Eastern Finland.
Where the order concerns evidence in the territory of a jurisdiction referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, there is no certainty of their location or any other specific reason, the District Attorney referred to in paragraph 1 shall be competent, irrespective of the The evidence requested in the jurisdiction of the court of appeal is located.
For specific reasons, the competent prosecutor may also be a prosecutor other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2.
The tasks relating to the execution of the evidence warrant shall be exercised by the police, Customs and Border Guard, where the warrant is based on a criminal offence committed under similar circumstances in Finland. Finnish law falls within the competence of that authority.
The execution of the evidence warrant in Finland shall be determined by the executing authority referred to in Article 5. However, the refusal or postponement of implementation shall be decided by the executing State or the Court of Justice.
The prosecutor responsible for implementation shall inform the Central Criminal Police of the order of the evidence received. However, the notification shall be made to customs or to the border guard if the warrant is based on a criminal offence, the investigation of which would fall within the competence of that authority. The police, customs and border guards are also required to inform the executing prosecutor of the evidence they receive from the evidence they receive. If the order is also linked to a criminal case pending in Finland or before a court, it shall also be notified to the prosecutor responsible for the criminal case.
The evidence warrant shall be enforced in Finland in accordance with Finnish law, unless otherwise provided for in this Act or the Framework Decision.
The execution of a warrant shall be refused if:
(1) the implementation of the provision is subject to the law of (2006) , and would not be permitted according to the law of the law;
(2) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the proof referred to in the order contains information on which Chapter 17 of the Court of Justice Cannot be proved, or the provision cannot be enforced for reasons of immunity or privilege inherent in a binding international obligation under any other legislation or Finland. (12/05/2015)
L to 749/2015 Paragraph 2 shall enter into force on 1 January 2016. The previous wording reads:
(2) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the proof referred to in the order contains information on which Article 23 of Chapter 17 of the Court of Justice Cannot be proved, or the provision cannot be enforced for reasons of immunity or privilege inherent in a binding international obligation under any other legislation or Finland.
(13/04/2013)However, if the provision is based on a criminal offence within the meaning of Article 14 (2) of the Framework Decision, the implementation of paragraph 1, paragraph 1, shall not be refused on the grounds that the offence should not be punishable under Finnish law, If it had been done under similar conditions in Finland.
The execution of an evidence warrant may be refused if:
(1) the case is definitively settled in the case of the offence on which the order is based;
(2) the evidence warrant is incomplete or manifestly incorrect and has not been supplemented or corrected within a reasonable time limit set by the executing authority;
(3) the implementation of the provision would jeopardise the security of the data source;
4) the person concerned by the order did not fulfil the reference year for the award of the order.
The execution of a warrant shall not be refused on grounds other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3.
The refusal to execute the evidence warrant shall be decided by the executing State.
If, pursuant to Article 21 of Chapter 7 of Chapter 7 of the Rules of Procedure, the seizure of the order for the execution of the order may be confirmed, the Court of First Instance may also decide to refuse the confiscation order. (13/04/2013)
The execution of the warrant shall be suspended on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 16 (1) (a) and (2) of the Framework Decision. The deferral shall be decided by the executing State.
If, pursuant to Article 21 of Chapter 7 of Chapter 7 of the Rules of Procedure, the seizure of the order for the execution of the order may be confirmed, the suspension may also be decided by the Court of Seizure. (13/04/2013)
The evidence warrant shall be submitted to Finland in Finnish, Swedish or English or accompanied by a translation into one of these languages. The executing authority may also accept a provision other than that provided in Finnish, Swedish or English, if otherwise there is no obstacle to the approval.
Where appropriate, the executing authority shall ensure translation into Finnish or Swedish. If necessary, the Ministry of Justice will assist in translation.
The person concerned by the evidence warrant may refer the decision to the execution of the order to the District Court. The proceedings shall be dealt with in accordance with Article 1 (2) and Article 15 of Chapter 7 of Chapter 7 of the Forced Aspects Act and the provisions of this Act.
The competent district court in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 shall be:
(1) the Helsinki District Court, if the proof referred to in the order is situated in the territory of the District Court of Helsinki;
2) The District Court of Oulu, if the proof referred to in the order is located in the territory of the District Court of Rovaniemi;
(3) The district court of Pirkanmaa, if the proof referred to in the order is situated in the territory of the district of Turku or Vaasa;
(4) The district court of North Savo, if the proof referred to in the order is situated in the territory of the District Court of Eastern Finland.
If the appeal is subject to a decision of the District Court in the case of seizure, or a decision taken in connection with its proceedings to refuse or delay enforcement, the decision of the district court may be appealed. The decision referred to in paragraph 1 of the District Court may also be appealed. The court of appeal shall be entitled to the court of appeal of the Court of Appeal of the Court of Justice.
The appeal referred to in this Article shall not prevent the execution of the evidence warrant unless the relevant court decides otherwise.
In Finland, the evidence warrant may be issued by an official prosecutor, district court, court of appeal and the Supreme Court.
If the evidence requested is held by the executing authority and the Member State concerned has not requested confirmation of the evidence warrant by the judicial authority referred to in paragraph 1, the Shall also issue an official who has the authority of the investigating officer in a police, customs or border police department within the competence of that authority, which requires international cooperation.
If, in Finland, a criminal offence is under investigation which is necessary for the purposes of the investigation, a certificate which falls within the scope of the Framework Decision is located in another Member State, the investigating authority shall immediately inform the (805/2011) in Chapter 5, The prosecutor referred to in paragraph 1. At the same time, the investigating authority shall inform the prosecutor of its views as to whether, in the light of the provisions of Article 21 (2) and (3) of the Framework Decision, it is necessary to request a framework decision or another On the basis of the concession contract. (13/04/2013)
The warrant shall be translated into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing Member State. If the Member State concerned has indicated that it will also accept the translation into the official language of the other institutions of the European Union, the evidence warrant may be translated into the language accepted by the Member State.
The issuing authority shall ensure the translation of the evidence warrant into the language required by the executing State. If necessary, the Ministry of Justice will assist in translation.
Where, according to its national law, another Member State is responsible for the implementation of the evidence warrant issued by the Finnish judicial authority, Finland shall reimburse the compensation paid by the State in question. However, in so far as the damage or part of the damage is caused by the activities of the executing State, Finland does not pay compensation.
The payment of compensation shall be determined by the Ministry of Justice.
If, according to its national law, the State of Finland is liable for the damage caused by the execution of the evidence warrant issued by the judicial authority of another Member State, Finland may require that State to replace Finland The compensation paid by the State in so far as the damage was not wholly or partly caused by the activities of the Finnish authority.
The request for compensation will be decided by the Ministry of Justice.
In addition to the provisions of this Law and the Framework Decision, the legal aid provided for in this Law shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1994) .
The Decree of the Council of State lays down which provisions of the framework decision not covered by the law are to be complied with and, if necessary, lay down further provisions on the implementation of the Framework Decision and of this Law.
This Act shall enter into force on 19 January 2011. Legal aid requests submitted before the entry into force of this Act shall be governed by the provisions in force at the time of entry into force of this Act.
In relation to a Member State which has not implemented the framework decision not later than the date of entry into force of this Act, the provisions in force at the date of entry into force of this Act shall apply until the Member State concerned has implemented the Framework Decision Implementation.
THEY 268/2009 , LaVM 7/2010, EV 60/2010, Council Framework Decision 2008 /978/JHA (32008F0978); OJ L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 72-92This Act shall enter into force on 1 January 2014.
THEY 222/2010 , LaVM 44/2010 EV 374/2010
This Act shall enter into force on 1 April 2014.
The decision of the prosecutor referred to in this Act, concluded before the entry into force of this Act, shall be brought before the entry into force of this Act in accordance with the law in force.
Before the law enters into force, action can be taken to enforce the law.
THEY 153/2012 , LaVM 2/2013, EV 28/2013
This Act shall enter into force on 1 January 2016.
THEY 46/2014 , LaVM 19/2014, EV 274/2014
