Eurojust explains under what conditions administrative authorities can issue European investigation orders.

A synthesis published by Eurojust on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies under what conditions an administrative authority conducting a criminal investigation can request the obtaining of evidence in another member state. One of the most recent rulings analyzed is WBS GmbH, pronounced on July 10, 2025, in which the Court accepted the issuance of an order by an administrative authority when intrusive measures are authorized according to national law, and the order is validated judicially before transmission.

In short, Eurojust has gathered ten rulings of the Court of Justice regarding the European investigation order and organized them by themes such as the issuing authority, conditions for issuance, use of evidence, appeals, and interception of communications. The WBS GmbH ruling from July 10, 2025, originated from an investigation by the anti-corruption authority in Latvia, which requested the hearing of witnesses and the search of the premises of a company in Germany. An administrative authority can issue the order if it is designated by its state, conducts the specific criminal investigation, and is competent to order the obtaining of evidence according to national law. The fact that a search must be authorized in advance by a judge does not exclude the administrative authority from the procedure, but the European order must be validated by a judicial authority before transmission. Eurojust's summaries are a reference tool for practitioners and do not represent new rulings or mandatory interpretations for the Court of Justice.

The Eurojust document presents the case law of the Court of Justice regarding the European investigation order and is updated until July 2025. The synthesis covers ten rulings and explains how the Court has interpreted who can issue an order, what measures can be requested, under what conditions evidence can be obtained and used, and what appeals must exist.

Eurojust does not adopt new rules through this document and does not modify the effects of the rulings. The agency summarizes the Court's decisions to support judicial authorities and practitioners using the European investigation order in cross-border criminal cases.

One of the most recent decisions included is the WBS GmbH ruling from July 10, 2025. The case originated from a criminal investigation conducted by the Office for the Prevention and Combat of Corruption in Latvia, known by the acronym KNAB.

The authority investigated suspicions of large-scale fraud, illegal use of another person's property, forgery, and use of false documents. Investigators wanted to hear witnesses and search the premises of the WBS GmbH company in Germany.

According to Latvian law, the measure affecting the rights of the targeted person had to be authorized in advance by an investigating judge. KNAB obtained this authorization and subsequently issued a European investigation order addressed to the German authorities.

Before the order was transmitted to Germany, it was validated by a Latvian prosecutor. The German authorities executed the requested measures and obtained the evidence requested by the investigators from Latvia.

The WBS GmbH company contested the transfer of evidence. It argued that KNAB could not issue the European order because the administrative authority did not have the competence to order the search in the context of an internal case.

The higher court in Berlin asked the Court of Justice to determine whether an administrative authority can be considered an issuing authority when the requested measure must be authorized in advance by a judge according to national law.

In the ruling from July 2025, the Court established that such an authority can issue a European investigation order if three cumulative conditions are met. The authority must be designated by the member state, act in the respective case as the responsible authority for the criminal investigation, and have the necessary competence to obtain evidence according to national law.

The requirement for prior judicial authorization does not automatically exclude the administrative authority. The Court considered that this authorization is a guarantee applicable to the intrusive measure, not evidence that the authority conducting the investigation has lost competence over the obtaining of evidence.

The administrative authority remains responsible for the investigation and for choosing the measures it deems necessary. It knows the facts under investigation, the evidence already available, and the connection between the requested measure and the alleged offenses.

The judge separately checks whether the search or another intervention affecting fundamental rights can be authorized. The verification concerns the conditions provided by national law, including the necessity and proportionality of the measure.

The European order issued by an administrative authority must then be validated by a judicial authority before being sent to the state that will execute it. Validation can be carried out by a judge, a court, an investigating judge, or a competent prosecutor.

The Court thus described a multi-step control mechanism. The specific measure, such as the search, is first authorized when national law requires it, and the order for execution requested from another state is subsequently validated judicially.

The two controls do not necessarily have the same object. National authorization concerns the proposed intervention in the investigation, while validation concerns the European order and the conditions under which the measure is requested from the authorities of another member state.

Validation should not be treated as a mere formality. The judicial authority must verify whether the order is necessary and proportional and whether it complies with the conditions provided for European cooperation in criminal matters.

The ruling does not allow an administrative authority to evade national rules. If a measure requires the authorization of a judge in a comparable internal case, the same guarantee must be respected before execution is requested from another state.

The decision distinguishes this situation from the case in which a prosecutor attempts to issue an order for a measure that, according to the law of its state, is reserved exclusively for a judge. The European instrument cannot grant an authority competences that it does not have in a similar internal procedure.

In the case of administrative authorities, European legislation does provide for a distinct category of issuers. These institutions can conduct specialized criminal investigations and prepare the order, provided that it is subject to judicial validation before transmission.

The Court considered that excluding all administrative authorities would deprive this category of practical effect. In member states, some criminal investigations are conducted by anti-corruption, tax, customs, or other administrative institutions with specialized responsibilities.

The ruling does not automatically grant any administrative authority the right to issue an order. The institution must be designated by the member state, effectively conduct the investigation, and meet all the conditions established by national law and European rules.

The requested state retains its own role in recognizing and executing the order. Its authorities can apply the grounds for refusal or postponement provided by legislation and can propose a less intrusive measure when it can produce the same result.

Execution can also be refused when there are serious reasons to consider that the measure would be incompatible with fundamental rights. Mutual recognition does not eliminate obligations regarding the protection of privacy, property, and the right to an appeal.

The European investigation order is intended for obtaining evidence in criminal cases with a cross-border dimension. It can be used for searches, seizures, hearings, banking information, telecommunications data, and other investigative measures, under the applicable conditions for each category.

The instrument is different from the European arrest warrant. The investigation order concerns the obtaining and transmission of evidence, while the arrest warrant is used for the detention and surrender of a person to another member state.

The Eurojust synthesis presents the WBS GmbH ruling as part of a broader case law regarding the delineation of roles between investigators, prosecutors, and judges. The document aims to facilitate the consistent application of these rulings, without replacing the full texts of the Court's decisions.