European Investigation Order: The Court of Cassation and the Competence of the District Judge for Preliminary Investigations (Judgment No. 21594/2025)

Judicial cooperation is vital in combating transnational crime. The European Investigation Order (EIO) is a key tool for obtaining evidence between EU Member States. Its application raises complex domestic jurisdiction issues. The Court of Cassation, in Judgment No. 21594 of June 9, 2025, provides essential clarification.

The EIO: Regulatory Framework and Challenges

The EIO, transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree No. 108 of June 21, 2017, is a judicial measure for investigative activities in another Member State. The decree governs the issuance and execution of incoming EIOs. The challenge lies in identifying the competent Italian authority, especially when the investigative act must be performed directly by a judge.

Judgment No. 21594/2025: Clarification on Competence

The Judgment of the Court of Cassation, presided over by B. M. and with A. F. as rapporteur, clarified functional and territorial competence in incoming EIOs, defining the role of the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP). The case concerned the competence of the GIP of the Court of Udine.

In matters of incoming European Investigation Orders, Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 108 of June 21, 2017, provides for the functional and territorial competence of the Public Prosecutor's Office at the district court of the place where the requested activity is to be carried out. Therefore, if the issuing judicial authority requests that the investigative act be performed by a judge, the competent authority to rule on this is the judge for preliminary investigations of the same district court.

This ruling is fundamental. The Court, based on Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 108/2017, establishes the competence of the district Public Prosecutor's Office of the place of execution for incoming EIOs. A crucial distinction is made: if the requesting authority requires the act to be performed by a judge, competence shifts to the GIP of the same district court. This ensures judicial safeguards and prevents delays.

Practical Aspects and Legal References

The decision of the Court of Cassation offers clear guidance. Key points include:

• Functional and Territorial Competence: To the district Public Prosecutor's Office of the place of execution.
• Role of the GIP: Intervenes if the investigative act is specifically requested by a judge.
• Governing Legislation: Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 108/2017 is central, supplemented by other articles of the decree (e.g., Article 5) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (e.g., Articles 724 and 328).

This ruling is part of a consolidated body of case law.

Conclusions: Efficiency and Certainty in Cooperation

Judgment No. 21594 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a landmark decision for EIOs. Clarifying the GIP's competence for specific requests is essential for speed, effectiveness, and respect for defense guarantees. The decision strengthens legal certainty and optimizes cooperation between states, aligning the Italian system with the needs of modern, transnational criminal justice. It is crucial for professionals in international criminal law.