Table of Contents: I. La nécessité d’une harmonisation accrue de la procédure pénale européenne. – II. L’existence de garanties protégeant les intérêts des États. – II.1. Un droit primaire garantissant l’efficacité des enquêtes. – II.2. Un droit dérivé garantissant le respect des droits nationaux. – III. L’émergence de garanties protégeant les droits des individus. – III.1. Des garanties implicites fondées sur la Charte. – III.2. Des garanties rejetées par le droit pénal européen.
Abstract: European Union criminal law covers cooperation in criminal matters and the investigative powers granted to European delegated prosecutors. Therefore, it provides for the use of investigative measures interfering with the right to privacy. Those measures are taken on the basis of national law implementing European Union law and they must comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. However, the Charter does not explicitly specify the guarantees applicable to such investigative acts. Moreover, the competences of the European Union in criminal procedure are intended only to balance the effectiveness of European investigations and the interests of Member States. Therefore, secondary law does not directly aim at protecting fundamental rights. This situation is becoming increasingly problematic insofar as the case law of the Court of Justice itself tends to request guarantees regarding the use of those measures. For example, a minimum degree of suspicion is a requirement that must be met for those measures to be used. Similarly, targeted persons have to be notified of the measure and have access to effective remedies. Such requirements are currently rejected by European union secondary law.
Keywords: procedural guarantees – privacy – cooperation in criminal matters – investigative measures – data protection – competences of the European Union.
* Docteur en droit, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, email@example.com.