Conclusion AG to Supreme Court on complaint against attachment under European Investigation Order (EPO)
Cassation; litigation in the Supreme Court
Conclusion AG to the Supreme Court regarding complaint against attachment on the basis of a European Investigation Order (EPO)
The District Court of Noord-Holland dismissed as unfounded the complainant’s complaint – as referred to in art. 5.4.10 Sv in conjunction with art. 552a Sv – seeking the return to him of sixteen objects seized pursuant to a European Investigation Order issued by the Belgian authorities. This decision was appealed in cassation.
In the cassation appeal filed by Linda van der Hut, it was complained, among other things, that the EPO was missing from the pleadings and that, in assessing the complaint, the Appeals Chamber apparently relied entirely on what was broadly outlined by the public prosecutor to that effect, both as regards the existence of the EPO and its contents. According to the Advocate General to the Supreme Court, the complaint was rightly presented, as it “appears to him to be incorrect that the court assessed the complaint solely on the basis of information provided by the prosecutor.” The Solicitor General concluded:
“After all, it follows from the case law cited that the obligation of secrecy does not prevent the prosecution, pursuant to Article 23(5) Sv, from having to produce all the documents relating to the case, and for the chambers that have to adjudicate on the complaint to take cognizance of those documents, because those documents have to be included in the assessment of the complaint. It is undesirable for the judge in a complaint procedure such as the present one to rely solely on the information filtered from the EPO by the prosecutor, without being able to check the accuracy or completeness of that information against the source document. Moreover, in the present case, the prosecutor also did not indicate why the EPO cannot be provided to the court. That the questions before the court in the present proceedings could possibly be assessed on the basis of the information provided by the prosecutor does not alter the foregoing.”
Read the full conclusion here: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:1029
