Measure Implementation

Is this measure possible in your Member State under International Judicial Cooperation?

Investigating judge may authorize to place and use electronic devices which enable the capture and recording of direct verbal communications by the party under investigation on public roads or other open spaces, in their domicile or in any other enclosed spaces. Listening and recording devices may be place outside and inside the domicile or enclosed space. Listening to and recording private conversations may be supplemented by obtaining images where expressly authorised by the judicial decision ordering it. The investigation should concern one of the following criminal offences (Art. 588 ter a in relationship with art.579.1 Criminal Procedural Code): a) Intentional crimes punished with a maximum of, at least, three years’ imprisonment sentence. b) Offences committed within a criminal group or organisation. c) Terrorist offences General requirements: 1. principles of speciality (a measure is related to the investigation of a specific crime), 2. adequacy (the objective and subjective scope and the duration of the measure depending on its usefulness), 3. exceptional nature and necessity (where the investigation, given its nature, does not have other measures available which are less onerous to the fundamental rights of the accused, and when discovering of the facts is seriously hampered without recourse to this measure) 4. proportionality of the measure (when the detriment of the rights and interests at stake is not greater than the benefit that their adoption provides for public interest and third parties). 5. judicial authorization, specifying the technical means to be used. 6. Obligation of providers, agents and persons to provide the assistance and cooperation needed to the judge, the Public Prosecution Service, or members of the Judiciary Police appointed. Requirements: 1. The use of the devices referred to in the previous article must be associated with communications which may take place in one or several specific encounters of the party under investigation. 2. The facts under investigation must constitute one of the following crimes: Intentional crimes punished with a maximum sentence of, at least, three years imprisonment, Crimes committed as a member of a criminal group or organization or Crimes of terrorism. 3. It must be reasonably foreseen that the use of the devices will provide essential data, with evidentiary relevance for clarification of the events and identification of their perpetrator. • for private room surveillance In the event that it is necessary to enter the domicile, or any of the spaces used privately, the enabling decision must set out its grounds for proceeding with access to such places. • which rules apply for placing a secret camera in a public place (e.g., in an office room) for investigative purposes. Are they different for placing a device in a private room/residence? Decision enabling the measure does not need to set out the grounds for accessing to the public place. • for which offences could be performed 1. Intentional crimes punished with a maximum sentence of, at least, three years imprisonment, 2. Crimes committed as a member of a criminal group or organization or 3. Crimes of terrorism • authorities that are competent to decide on the measure Investigating Judge and Central Investigating Judge • time limits for performing the measure Only for one or several specific encounters of the party under investigation with other people. • are there legal differences between placing audio recorder and video recorder No, if the judge specifically authorize it, placing video recorder is possible.

Legal Framework

International legal framework applicable for this measure in your Member State

Article 588 quarter a) to e) of Spanish Criminal Procedural Code; Article 205 a 213 of Law 23/2014 on mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters in the European Union

Competent Authority

* receive the request/decision for judicial cooperation

-receive the request/decision for judicial cooperation The Prosecutor's Office in the case of EIO (see atlas) and in the case of MLA the Public Prosecutor's Office or Investigating Judge. -execute/recognise the measure (if other than the receiving authority) Investigating Judge and Central Investigating Judge

Accepted languages

Accepted languages for the request/decision

Spanish

Execution deadline

Deadlines for the execution of the request/decision (where applicable)

-There is not a deadline for the execution of rogatory letters. -The decision to recognise and execute the European Investigation Order or, where applicable, to refuse to execute it shall be taken as soon as possible and at the latest within 30 days of its receipt by the competent authority. Where, in a specific case, the competent Spanish authority finds that the time limit for the recognition and enforcement of the order cannot be met, it shall inform the issuing authority without delay, giving the reasons and stating the estimated time needed to take the decision. In this case, the time limit for issuing the decision on recognition and enforcement may be extended up to a maximum of 30 days. The Spanish competent authority shall carry out the execution of the investigative measure without delay and at the latest within 90 days after the adoption of the decision on recognition and enforcement.

Concise legal practical information

Special requirements

-There are not different rules when cooperating outside of UE, only legal basis for this cooperation changes.

Last reviewed on 29 June 2022 by EJN Secretariat

NEXT MEASURE

  • Covert investigation (A.60)
  • A.60 Agents - infiltration
next

Export this Judicial Cooperation Measure

File format