1.

Does Article 24 of Directive 2014/41/EU, (2) in so far as it provides that the issuing authority may issue a [European Investigation Order (EIO)] even for the purpose of hearing a suspected or accused person by videoconference or other audiovisual transmission, read in the light of recitals 24 and 26 of that directive, permit the issuance of an EIO for the hearing by videoconference of an accused person who is not detained in the executing State, with a view to ensuring that person’s presence and participation in the ongoing criminal trial in the issuing State?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, may the executing judicial authority, where a ‘procedural’ [European arrest warrant (EAW)] has already been issued for the sole purpose of ensuring the participation of the accused person in the trial in the issuing State, request the withdrawal of the EAW and the issuance of an [EIO] for the hearing by videoconference of the accused person, with a view to ensuring that person’s presence and participation in the ongoing criminal proceedings in the issuing State?

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, must the judicial authority of the issuing State withdraw the EAW and issue an [EIO] in its place for the hearing by videoconference of the accused person, with a view to ensuring that person’s presence and participation in the ongoing criminal trial in the issuing State?

4.

If the answer to the second question is in the negative, where the accused person has declared that he or she intends to be present at the ongoing criminal trial in the issuing State and his or her defence counsel have given assurances that they will accompany the accused person to the hearing in the criminal trial before the court of the issuing State, may, or must, that State withdraw the EAW?