This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024CA0325
Case C-325/24, Bissilli: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze – Italy) – Criminal proceedings against HG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2014/41/EU – European Investigation Order in criminal matters – Article 3 – Material scope – Concept of investigative measure – Purpose – Obtaining evidence – Article 10 – Recourse to a different type of investigative measure – Article 11 – Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution – Fundamental rights – Article 22 – Temporary transfer to the issuing State of the person held in custody for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure – Article 24 – Hearing of the accused person by videoconference – Article 24(2)(b) – Fundamental principles of the law of the executing Member State)
Case C-325/24, Bissilli: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze – Italy) – Criminal proceedings against HG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2014/41/EU – European Investigation Order in criminal matters – Article 3 – Material scope – Concept of investigative measure – Purpose – Obtaining evidence – Article 10 – Recourse to a different type of investigative measure – Article 11 – Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution – Fundamental rights – Article 22 – Temporary transfer to the issuing State of the person held in custody for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure – Article 24 – Hearing of the accused person by videoconference – Article 24(2)(b) – Fundamental principles of the law of the executing Member State)
Case C-325/24, Bissilli: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze – Italy) – Criminal proceedings against HG (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2014/41/EU – European Investigation Order in criminal matters – Article 3 – Material scope – Concept of investigative measure – Purpose – Obtaining evidence – Article 10 – Recourse to a different type of investigative measure – Article 11 – Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution – Fundamental rights – Article 22 – Temporary transfer to the issuing State of the person held in custody for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure – Article 24 – Hearing of the accused person by videoconference – Article 24(2)(b) – Fundamental principles of the law of the executing Member State)
OJ C, C/2026/918, 23.2.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/918/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2026/918 |
23.2.2026 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze – Italy) – Criminal proceedings against HG
(Case C-325/24, (1) Bissilli (2) )
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/41/EU - European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Article 3 - Material scope - Concept of ‘investigative measure’ - Purpose - Obtaining evidence - Article 10 - Recourse to a different type of investigative measure - Article 11 - Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution - Fundamental rights - Article 22 - Temporary transfer to the issuing State of the person held in custody for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure - Article 24 - Hearing of the accused person by videoconference - Article 24(2)(b) - Fundamental principles of the law of the executing Member State)
(C/2026/918)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze
Parties in the main proceedings
HG
other party: Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Firenze
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Articles 3, 22 and 24 of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority of a Member State may issue a European Investigation Order (EIO) for the purposes of either the temporary transfer to its territory of a person in custody in another Member State, in order to hear that person as an accused person during his or her trial, or the organisation, by the authorities of the latter Member State, of a hearing by videoconference of that person in that same capacity during his or her trial, even if the execution of that measure also involves the appearance of that person at that trial, in so far as that measure has an evidential objective and its execution does not go beyond what is necessary for the purpose of gathering evidence. |
|
2. |
Article 10, Article 11(1)(h) and Article 24 of Directive 2014/41 must be interpreted as meaning that an authority of a Member State cannot refuse to execute an EIO concerning the organisation, during the criminal trial, of a hearing by videoconference of the accused person on the sole ground that that measure would not be available in a similar domestic case. |
|
3. |
Article 11(1)(f) of Directive 2014/41 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the ground for refusal provided for in that provision does not preclude the execution of an EIO concerning the organisation, during a criminal trial, of a hearing by videoconference of the accused person does not prevent the executing authority from refusing to execute it on the basis on another ground for refusal provided for in that directive. |
|
4. |
Article 24(2)(b) of Directive 2014/41 must be interpreted as precluding an authority of a Member State from refusing to execute an EIO concerning the organisation, during a criminal trial, of a hearing by videoconference of the accused person solely on the basis of general guidelines issued by that Member State without carrying out an examination which takes into account all of the relevant circumstances of the case. |
(1) OJ C, C/2024/4575.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/918/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)