The practice of “direct videoconferences” for the taking of testimonial evidence in cross-border cases

During the COVID-19 pandemic, European States developed a practice of conducting cross-border videoconference hearings concerning individuals located abroad without the involvement of the judicial authority of the State in which they were present. These so-called “direct videoconferences” allow the trial State to contact the defendant, expert or witness in the absence of an EIO or MLA request, relying solely on their consent. The practice was discussed in the European Judicial Network and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-255/23 and C-285/23. It was later addressed by the Council of the European Union in evaluating Member States’ implementation of the EIO Directive. Legislative initiatives within the broader European legal framework have also raised questions regarding its legitimacy. This article examines the compatibility of direct videoconferences with the principle of territorial sovereignty and fundamental rights, arguing that procedural forms governing cross-border evidence gathering are essential safeguards of fairness and procedural integrity, rather than mere formalities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oñati Socio-legal Series
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2681
Primary Topic
European Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The practice of “direct videoconferences” for the taking of testimonial evidence in cross-border cases

NICCOLò TRONCHIN
Oñati Socio-legal Series
European Criminal Justice and Data Protection
article

The practice of “direct videoconferences” for the taking of testimonial evidence in cross-border cases

NICCOLò TRONCHIN
article en

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, European States developed a practice of conducting cross-border videoconference hearings concerning individuals located abroad without the involvement of the judicial authority of the State in which they were present. These so-called “direct videoconferences” allow the trial State to contact the defendant, expert or witness in the absence of an EIO or MLA request, relying solely on their consent. The practice was discussed in the European Judicial Network and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-255/23 and C-285/23. It was later addressed by the Council of the European Union in evaluating Member States’ implementation of the EIO Directive. Legislative initiatives within the broader European legal framework have also raised questions regarding its legitimacy. This article examines the compatibility of direct videoconferences with the principle of territorial sovereignty and fundamental rights, arguing that procedural forms governing cross-border evidence gathering are essential safeguards of fairness and procedural integrity, rather than mere formalities.

Oñati Socio-legal Series
University of Ferrara (IT)
NextGenerationEU
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
European Criminal Justice and Data Protection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
The practice of “direct videoconferences” for the taking of testimonial evidence in cross-border cases — NICCOLò TRONCHIN · Oñati Socio-legal Series (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS