Mr Encro

Part 3 Evidence of Journalists only working for the NCA and authorities. Legal Challenge Collapses as UK Courts Uphold EncroChat Evidence The legal challenge in the EncroChat case known as “Sub-Zero” ultimately failed at the Court of Appeal, which refused permission for the case to proceed to the UK Supreme Court. Court of Appeal Decision In March 2021, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no “point of law of general public importance” that would justify referring the appeal to the Supreme Court. This decision effectively ended the legal avenues for challenging the admissibility of EncroChat evidence in this context. The court upheld the position that messages obtained from the encrypted EncroChat network by the NCA did not constitute live interception, but rather equipment interference—a distinction that made the data admissible under UK law. Justice Idis & the IPT Hearing into EncroChat: Process, Secrecy, and Public Concern The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is the UK’s independent body for handling complaints about surveillance by public bodies, including the police, intelligence services, and the National Crime Agency (NCA). In one of the most controversial digital surveillance cases in modern UK legal history — the EncroChat hack — a key hearing was overseen by Justice Idis. The Context: In 2020, French and Dutch authorities infiltrated the EncroChat encrypted phone network and shared decrypted messages with the UK’s NCA. This led to hundreds of arrests and convictions in the UK. However, serious legal concerns emerged: •Was the data lawfully obtained? •Did it amount to live interception, which requires a specific UK warrant under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016? •Or was it a bulk data hack treated as intelligence, bypassing key legal safeguards? The IPT Process Under Justice Idis: Justice Idis presided over a confidential IPT case — reportedly under the codename “Sub-Zero” — brought by several defendants challenging the legality of the data acquisition and its use in criminal prosecutions. Under Justice Idis’ direction: •Hearings were held in secret — with no access granted to the public or press •No full judgment or transcripts have been made publicly available, other than limited summaries or procedural notices •Core legal arguments over interception warrants, equipment interference, and cross-border data sharing between the NCA and French authorities were discussed behind closed doors This extreme level of secrecy — unusual even for the IPT — has raised significant concern among civil liberties groups, legal observers, and defense lawyers, who argue that: •The closed process undermines public confidence in surveillance oversight •Defendants may be convicted based on evidence never properly tested in open court •There is no clear precedent or transparency about how UK authorities treated the data and whether they followed due process Key Issues Linked to the IPT Case: •Digital forensic expert Luke Shrimpton gave evidence under unusual circumstances — via video link from an undisclosed location, in pyjamas, repeatedly stating he “could not recall” technical details •He discarded his phone — a device that likely contained vital data — without backing it up •Senior NCA officer Emma Sweeting gave conflicting statements under oath and was later found to have hidden key notes related to EncroChat on her laptop •Emails from French officials explicitly warned that the EncroChat data might not be usable as evidence — yet the NCA continued using it in prosecutions Conclusion: The IPT proceedings led by Justice Idis have had profound implications, yet there has been virtually no public or journalistic scrutiny. While the EncroChat data has led to hundreds of convictions, the legal basis for those convictions remains partially hidden from public view. As of now, the IPT has not released a full, reasoned judgment, and calls for transparency remain unanswered.

**Encrochat** To add to Lord Bandwidth reply to my earlier post. I have singled out the Liverpool Echo as it’s the chief Encrochat publisher of convictions only! and Pro NCA. #F@c! the ECHO! Why Do Local Papers Like the Liverpool Echo Stay Silent on NCA Misconduct? Local papers like the Liverpool Echo proudly publish NCA convictions with dramatic headlines — but when cases fall apart, officers lie under oath, or serious questions emerge about legality, it’s crickets. They never reported on Sub-Zero’s IPT hearing, never questioned the NCA’s honesty, and certainly never challenged the conduct of those involved. The public wasn’t even allowed into the hearing — Judge Idis banned attendance. Why? The same judge who refused right to appeal to Supreme Court! And plonked himself on the IPT! (You couldn’t make it up) Let’s talk about Luke Shrimpton, the so-called digital forensics expert at the heart of the EncroChat operation. He gave evidence via video link from an unknown location, wearing pyjamas, staring at the ceiling, and responding to most questions with, “I can’t recall” or “That’s what I was told.” Shrimpton attended high-level meetings with law enforcement agencies across Europe to understand the EncroChat hack — yet somehow came back with no understanding of how it actually worked. One of his colleagues even documented in writing: “Looks like LIVE INTERCEPTION.” And when asked to hand over his mobile phone? He threw it in the bin — without backing up vital data. A trained digital forensic specialist, deliberately discarding evidence that could have shed light on the methods and integrity of the operation. Then there’s Emma Sweeting, senior NCA officer. She ordered her team to delete messages. Under oath, she claimed her laptop had no notes — until a court order forced its recovery. Suddenly, a folder appeared: “ENCROCHAT NOTES.” Emails from French authorities explicitly warned: “You may not be able to use this for evidence.” Sweeting replied: “Will be used for intelligence purposes only.” So how did that data make it into courtrooms? If a jury saw all this, would they still be so quick to convict — regardless of what the data claims to show? Multiple years for chat without supporting evidence! We have laws in the UK that protect citizens from unlawful surveillance and prosecution based on questionable evidence. If Iran or Russia hacked tens of thousands of American phones without a warrant and gave the data to the FBI, would Trump have stood for it? Not a chance. But in the UK, it’s business as usual. A journalist recently confirmed what many suspect: newspapers are fed selective stories and inside scoops by the NCA and local police. In return, they publish only what fits the official narrative. They print photos and quotes that never came up in court, conceal acquittals, and hide misconduct — all for access and headlines. Yes, a few journalists are still fighting for balanced, honest reporting. But most are publishing state-filtered PR, not journalism. It’s time we demanded real accountability, real transparency, and real journalism. Hopefully there will be a brave investigative reporter who will strive for the truth behind this scandal. Part 3 to follow

Part 2: Operation Venetic the most successful operation in UK crime history. Why doesn’t anyone want to take all the acclaim for it?? Priti Patel, as the former Home Secretary, played a pivotal role in the UK’s response to the EncroChat operation, which led to significant law enforcement successes. Yet, her public profile has remained notably low regarding this matter. Similarly, key National Crime Agency (NCA) officers involved, such as Emma Sweeting, Luke Shrimpton, and others, have seen their careers take unexpected turns. Let’s delve into the reasons behind this. 🏛️ Priti Patel’s Low Public Profile Post-EncroChat Despite the EncroChat operation being hailed as one of the UK’s most successful law enforcement endeavors—resulting in over 3,000 arrests, the seizure of £52 million in cash, and the confiscation of substantial quantities of drugs and firearms—Priti Patel has not prominently featured in media discussions about these achievements. Her absence from public discourse on this topic is particularly striking given the scale of the operation and her position at the time. One possible explanation for this is the controversy surrounding the legal foundations of the EncroChat operation. Reports indicate that the NCA may have failed to fully disclose the methods used to obtain EncroChat data, leading to questions about the legality and transparency of the operation. Such issues could have made it politically sensitive for Patel to publicly associate herself with the operation’s successes. Additionally, her tenure as Home Secretary was marked by other controversies, including allegations of misconduct and strained relationships with police leaders, which may have further complicated her public stance on the matter. 👮‍♂️ The Fate of Key NCA Officers Several NCA officers who played crucial roles in the EncroChat operation have since left the agency under circumstances that raise questions. For instance, Emma Sweeting, who was involved in the application for warrants related to the operation, faced criticism for allegedly failing to disclose key information during the warrant application process. Reports suggest that she may have misrepresented the basis for the warrants, potentially compromising the legal standing of the operation’s evidence. Similarly, Luke Shrimpton, another officer involved, reportedly had limited understanding of how the EncroChat data was obtained, which could have implications for the operation’s legitimacy. These revelations have led to legal challenges and calls for greater transparency regarding the operation. The departure of these officers may be linked to the scrutiny and legal complexities arising from their involvement in the EncroChat operation. 📰 Media Silence and Public Awareness Despite the significant implications of the EncroChat operation, media coverage has been relatively sparse. This lack of attention may be due to the complex legal issues involved, which can be challenging for the public to grasp. Additionally, the sensitive nature of the operation and ongoing legal proceedings may have led to self-censorship among media outlets. However, the limited public discourse raises concerns about accountability and transparency in law enforcement practices. 🔍 Conclusion The limited public profiles of Priti Patel and key NCA officers following the EncroChat operation suggest that the operation’s successes may have been overshadowed by legal and ethical concerns. The lack of transparency and accountability in the operation has led to questions about the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of civil liberties. As the legal challenges continue, it remains to be seen how these issues will be addressed and whether they will lead to reforms in law enforcement practices.

Part 1: Question for all criminal journalists who like reporting on crime. Why aren’t you reporting on Encrochat now? I believe all journalism’s restrictions have been lifted, if I’m wrong please correct me. I would have thought it would have been a perfect opportunity to further your careers gain maximum exposure like Sir Bates from the Post Office Scandal. Below are a few reasons why it was difficult previously but now is the time to reconsider your position as it affects everyone’s future human rights if this goes unchallenged. Reporting restrictions imposed during the 2020 judicial review concerning the legality of EncroChat evidence in the UK have been lifted. However, the reasons for the initial restrictions and the subsequent limited media coverage remain subjects of concern. Background on Reporting Restrictions In November 2020, the High Court of England and Wales issued a reporting restriction order related to a judicial review concerning the legality of evidence obtained from the EncroChat hack. This order prohibited the identification of individuals suspected of crimes linked to EncroChat, effectively limiting public reporting on the matter at that time . These restrictions were specific to the judicial review process and were lifted once the court proceedings concluded. Since then, reporting on EncroChat-related cases has been permissible, provided that it adheres to standard legal and ethical guidelines. Limited Media Coverage Despite the lifting of reporting restrictions, media coverage of the judicial review and its implications has been notably sparse. Several factors contribute to this limited attention: •Complexity of Legal Issues: The legal intricacies surrounding the admissibility of evidence obtained through foreign surveillance operations are complex and may not be easily accessible to the general public. •Ongoing Legal Proceedings: With numerous cases still pending in the courts, media outlets may be cautious about reporting on aspects that could influence ongoing trials. •Resource Constraints: Investigative journalism requires significant resources, and many media organizations may prioritize other stories over in-depth coverage of legal proceedings. These factors have contributed to a situation where, despite the lifting of reporting restrictions, the judicial review and its implications have not received the extensive media coverage they arguably warrant.

Does a new document prove that Dutch law enforcement agencies were much more actively involved in hacking cryptophones? A new French document suggests that Dutch law enforcement agencies were more actively involved in hacking the encrypted communication services EncroChat and Sky ECC than previously acknowledged. This raises questions about the extent of their involvement and whether it was solely under French jurisdiction, as has been claimed. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM) has consistently argued that the investigations into these services were conducted by French authorities, and therefore, Dutch courts should trust the French legal process. However, the discovery of this new document challenges that narrative. The document, dated August 19, 2019, is a French police report indicating that Dutch authorities requested France’s assistance in placing an interception at the Sky ECC server in Roubaix. This suggests that the Dutch played a more proactive role in the operation than previously disclosed. Legal experts argue that if Dutch authorities were significantly involved, the principle of mutual trust, which allows Dutch courts to rely on foreign evidence without scrutinizing its legality, may not apply. This could have implications for the admissibility of evidence obtained through these operations in Dutch courts. The Dutch OM has stated that it was unaware of this document and maintains that the French conducted the investigation independently. However, the existence of this document could lead to renewed legal challenges and a reevaluation of the evidence’s admissibility. This development may have significant consequences for ongoing and past criminal cases that relied on evidence from EncroChat and Sky ECC. The Dutch Supreme Court may ultimately need to address whether the evidence obtained through these operations meets Dutch legal standards. In summary, the new document raises serious questions about the extent of Dutch involvement in the hacking of cryptophones and the legality of the evidence obtained. This could lead to significant legal challenges and a reassessment of past and current criminal cases.

New developments in the ongoing debate on #skyecc and the relevance for criminal cases all over Europe and in particular in the Netherlands, by @JustusReisinger joint-defense-team.com/post/new-groun…

@NcaNemesis @Julie78376095 Last I heard there was several 1000 documents that a legal team from the north east were going through.

@MrEncrochat @Julie78376095 Did anything come from these files that were passed by mistake

The report we were all waiting on by Bevan Clues. Another conman! Clueless!! For those unfamiliar with this individual, he is presented as the latest "reliability expert" poised to influence the court with purported expertise surpassing that of his predecessors. However, this characterization is far from accurate. Upon reviewing the report in question, it is unsurprising that the judge declined to grant disclosure in a recent court hearing. The legal argument presented was superficial and lacked substantive depth, offering little more than bare assertions without evidentiary support. Efforts to demand additional information from prosecution witnesses have proven futile. The report itself contains no new information—it merely reiterates known issues such as missing messages, alleged errors, claims of malicious manipulation of texts, and the National Crime Agency (NCA)’s failure to disclose encryption keys and data transport methods. It is clear and has been for sometime the NCA is unlikely to assist the defence, as doing so could jeopardize not only this case but also set a precedent potentially detrimental to numerous cases across the UK, without the intervention from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It appears that Mr. Clues has not obtained the transcripts from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), as his analysis fails to address any critical new points and the points he has have already been established by Duncan Campbell and Professor Ross Anderson. His conclusions align with theirs, and notably, both were unsuccessful in advancing their arguments. This represents a regrettable waste of time and resources. The individuals in the North East—who have already endured significant challenges—continue to face judicial decisions that lack the fortitude to challenge the prevailing narrative around EncroChat. Legal arguments are deliberated upon, yet decisions consistently avoid ruling in favor of the accused. The sole practical impact of these so-called "experts" has been the postponement of trial dates, thereby delaying the inevitable outcomes. On a related note, has there been any update from Campbell or Rahaloo? The last known development suggested they were preparing a report to substantiate claims that the NCA acted unlawfully, asserting that both the text messages and images were intercepted live during transmission. Unfortunately, the live-versus-stored argument has repeatedly failed, largely due to inadequate explanations from individuals who lack true expertise, and are trumped by a NCA technician . The assertion that messages were retrieved from handsets only after being stored momentarily is, at best, tenuous and, at worst, laughable. Elsewhere in Europe, the focus has shifted to Article 31 of the European Investigation Order (EIO) Directive. The Court of Justice has found that the protections offered by Article 31 are designed not only to safeguard the rights of the state receiving evidence but also to protect the individual telecom users whose communications have been intercepted by law enforcement. Despite this, the UK continues to allocate substantial resources to arguments and evidence that fail to address these protections effectively. After nearly five years of allegations involving manipulated evidence, governmental interference, biased trials, and questionable conduct by the NCA, the EncroChat scandal is approaching its conclusion. The prosecution’s opening statements in these cases have been so persuasive that defendants are disadvantaged even before the first witness is called. The claim that EncroChat was a platform exclusively used by high-level criminals remains unproven. Judges continue to allow this assertion to be presented as fact, undermining the principle that not all users of the platform were engaged in criminal enterprises.

*ENCROCHAT* 5 Years on and this is confirmation of the biggest scandal in UK legal history!! The Government knows!! The NCA knows!! The Judges know!! The Families and Friends of Defendants all know!! What are these lawyers going to do after taking millions of pounds from defendants with no results. Below makes interesting reading how the ECJ ruling could and should affect the UK. While UK courts are not bound by rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) post-Brexit, the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-670/22 (EncroChat) raises profound implications that UK courts must still reckon with, especially under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — the right to a fair trial, which remains binding via the Human Rights Act 1998. Here’s how and why UK authorities appear to “ignore” or sideline this CJEU ruling: 1. Post-Brexit Legal Position •CJEU judgments issued after 31 December 2020 (end of the Brexit transition period) are no longer binding on UK courts. •UK courts may have regard to EU case law, but are not obliged to follow it — even where it concerns cooperation with EU law enforcement. 2. UK Legal Justification for Using EncroChat Data •UK courts (notably in R v. A, B, D & C [2021] EWCA Crim 128) approved the use of EncroChat evidence, asserting: •The data was obtained lawfully from French authorities. •It did not fall within the “intercept” provisions of UK law (which would otherwise bar admissibility under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 – RIPA). •It was treated as stored communications, not live interception. This interpretation directly contradicts the CJEU’s classification of the EncroChat infiltration as live interception under EU law. 3. The CJEU Ruling vs UK Approach CJEU (C-670/22)UK Courts Live transmission = interceptionTreated as retrieval of stored data Requires fair trial safeguards & transparencyRelied on national security exemption and trust in French procedure Questions reliability and defence rightsAdmissibility affirmed without full defence access to technical details 4. ECHR Implications Even if the UK ignores the CJEU, Article 6 ECHR applies: •If live data was intercepted and defence cannot properly challenge how it was obtained or its authenticity, this could violate the right to a fair trial. •No access to source code, interception process, or verification mechanisms may impair adversarial proceedings. A challenge on these grounds could still be brought before the UK Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). 5. Why It Still Matters in the UK •The EncroChat defence community is growing, particularly around technical fairness and procedural transparency. •Some lawyers are pushing for reconsideration based on C-670/22 and potential ECHR violations. •ECtHR litigation could force the UK to reassess the admissibility of such data.

@spring66435 You could be correct but I’m sure Montgomery will not be caught short a second time .

@MrEncrochat then half way down that route you find out it was actually NL who decrypted encrochat and not France like the recent skyecc revelation and probably need to start over again.

In response to E.Jarvis ruling 2024 in EcHR there are now 3 UK defendants (CP, JH,WM) going down the correct legal route which will meet the criteria for the grand chamber to hear their cases. For those who are not familiar with the procedure here it is; If the domestic court handling your case is not in the jurisdiction where your rights were violated (for example, if your conviction was in one country but the violation happened in another), you still need to follow certain steps. Key Points: 1.Domestic Remedies in the Right Country: •You need to use the legal system in the country where the violation happened. •For example, if you believe your rights were violated in France, you have to use France’s legal system to try and fix the problem, even if your conviction was in the UK. 2.If You Can’t Access Legal Help in the Right Country: •If you can’t use the legal system in the country where the violation happened (because it’s not working properly or the courts are unfair), you can bring your case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) directly. 3.Taking the Case to the ECHR: •Once you’ve tried all legal options in the right country (the country where the violation happened), you can take your case to the ECHR if you think your human rights were violated. Example: •If your conviction was in the UK, but you believe France violated your right to a fair trial, you’d need to use French legal options first. After that, you could take the case to the ECHR. This way, the ECHR can still help even if your conviction and violation happened in different countries, as long as it’s about your rights under European law.

Put these dates in your calendar. Upcoming Section 29 Hearing on EncroChat Evidence – Croydon Crown Court On 6 November 2025, Croydon Crown Court is set to hold a Section 29 preparatory hearing under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA). The primary objective of this hearing is to assess the admissibility of evidence obtained from the EncroChat encrypted messaging platform. Key Details: •Date: 6 November 2025 •Location: Croydon Crown Court, London •Purpose: To determine whether EncroChat-derived evidence is admissible in a specific criminal trial. This hearing is particularly significant as it will be the first Section 29 hearing concerning EncroChat evidence within the South Eastern Circuit. Similar proceedings have already been scheduled in Liverpool and Manchester Crown Courts. The hearing will closely examine the lawfulness of the evidence’s acquisition and whether its use aligns with existing legal standards, including issues of Public Interest Immunity (PII). In related cases, concerns have been raised about the prosecution’s handling of sensitive material, with allegations of undisclosed PII applications potentially withholding key information from the defence. What is Section 29? Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) allows for preparatory hearings in complex or serious criminal cases. These hearings are held before a full trial to address important legal issues in advance, including admissibility of evidence. The main aims of a Section 29 hearing are to: •Resolve legal matters early, such as whether specific evidence, like EncroChat data, can be used in court. •Deal with procedural issues such as disclosure and sensitive material handling, including Public Interest Immunity (PII) concerns. •Clarify legal points that could impact how the trial is conducted. The decisions made during a Section 29 hearing are binding for the trial unless appealed with the court’s permission. Although the full details of the Croydon case remain confidential, the outcome of this hearing is expected to play a pivotal role in shaping how EncroChat evidence is handled in future UK prosecutions.

Mantra. Is this your husband Jenn I can imagine you being a lonely 18st, 45 year old woman with 4 cats 2 dogs last time you got excited was when your abusive husband who is coincidentally your brother got community service for images on your laptop. Cumbria one of the largest population of child abusers in the UK. If you got anything about you DM me and we will have this conversation face to face or you can put your double cheeseburger down and get your fat arse off the sofa join the police and make a difference.

@MrEncrochat 'let me guess' seems to be your go to mantra. Whereas.... nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/a-prison-…

Three men involved in a large scale supply network of cocaine and cannabis in #Chester and #NorthWales have been sentenced to a combined total of over 20 years in prison. #Encrochat Video in the link cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/…

EncroChat Update For everyone with loved ones affected by the second-largest scandal in recent history (after the Post Office scandal), the outcome of this case may not be of interest to the general public, but for those impacted by this injustice, it is crucial. Claire Montgomery KC, widely regarded as one of the best barristers in the country, now faces the monumental task of challenging points of law against the Crown Prosecution Service’s top criminal prosecutor, Mr. Kinnear. He claims never to have lost a trial and is also involved in the Post Office scandal. Despite concerns after a troubling meeting in Europe regarding potential issues arising from the Berlin ruling, Mr. Kinnear seems to have regained his strength. Claire Montgomery will undoubtedly give them a run for their money, though the odds are heavily stacked against her for obvious reasons. It is believed that every judge in the UK has been instructed to rule in favor of the Crown to prevent massive embarrassment to the judicial system. I want to wish Harding and his legal team the very best of luck. Regardless of the outcome, we will pursue justice through the European Court of Human Rights (EcHR). mediafire.com/file/rf7svyk8e…

The tide is turning!! In more than 100 pages, the judges of the Berlin court explain in great detail what went wrong in the operation surrounding EncroChat. They give their factual and legal view in strong terms. It is clear to the court that the authorities involved (police and judiciary) (from France, the Netherlands, but also Europol and, in this case, even Germany) never had the intention of ensuring proper compliance with European/international law, in particular Article 31 of Directive 2014/41. The consequence is that there was never any intention to ensure compliance with the national law of the various jurisdictions from which data was obtained, even though these problems were recognised at the time by the authorities involved. In the meantime, it was also their intention to extract data from all these countries and also for those countries, because the minimal use of EncroChat in France itself never justifies this operation, according to the court. But the court goes further than that. Given what the French judge used for authorisation to hack all EncroChat users worldwide, the hack could never have been authorised by a German judge, either beforehand or afterwards. The court also refers to the judgement of, for example, the Rotterdam court, which we have reported on previously (see here), and which shows that even after extensive investigation by the Dutch police and the public prosecutor's office, it cannot be established that (virtually) all EncroChat users are criminals. It is our deeply-held conviction that this judgement/these judgements are no different for all other countries of the European Union (with the exception of France): By circumventing European law, specifically Article 31 of Directive 2014/41, national legal protection has also been circumvented and no competent authority of any member state of the European Union has been able to protect its own citizens as it would in a comparable domestic situation. This means that the relevance and significance of this verdict should not be underestimated. After all, this interpretation applies to all the member states of the European Union and probably even to all member states of the Council of Europe (with the exception of France) via the Cybercrime Convention. Moreover, we read in this decision an unambiguous confirmation of the argument that many lawyers and in any case the members of our team have been advocating for a long time in many criminal cases throughout Europe. In addition, the court points to the problems surrounding the reliability of the EncroChat data. It appears that there are imperfections without a clear explanation. However, the court was unable to carry out an audit, including an investigation of the ‘chain of custody’. The court considers this necessary for a fair criminal trial, referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For example, a suspect must also be given access to the (raw) data. Conclusion We therefore do not need to speculate about the significance of this decision for other criminal cases. The outcome will be the same as in the Berlin case when it comes to criminal cases in which EncroChat data may be of decisive significance for a conviction, without it being possible to effectively comment on it in terms of legality or reliability. In those cases, the defendant will have to be acquitted because the data cannot be used. Moreover, this outcome does not only apply to EncroChat cases, but also to criminal cases based on, for example, Sky ECC data or Anom data. In these cases, the legal interpretation of the aforementioned principles of European law/Article 31 of Directive 2014/41 and a fair criminal process with effective contradiction are not essentially different. These cases also involved the circumvention of international and national rules for the legal protection of citizens and a situation in which suspects in criminal cases cannot effectively comment on this.

Part 4

Part 3

Part 2