1. The European Investigation Order (EIO) shall be a judicial decision issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State ("the issuing State") in order to have one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in another Member State ("the executing State") with a view to obtaining evidence in accordance with the provisions of this Directive.

12. Welcomes the adoption of the Strategy and the Action Plan on the reform of the judiciary 2013-2018, built around the key principles of independence, impartiality, competence, quality of the judiciary and freedom from political interference; urges the authorities to intensify this reform in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission, especially with regard to the role of the parliament in judicial appointments and the independence of the prosecution, and with a view to the screening process of Chapter 23, which commenced on 25 September 2013; stresses the importance of strengthening the independence of High Judicial and ...[+++]State Prosecutorial Councils and reducing the backlog of cases, as a necessary condition for the successful sequencing of the entire reform process; calls on the authorities to provide all the necessary resources for the Judicial Academy, which should be instrumental in guaranteeing merit-based recruitments; emphasises the need for continuous training of judges and prosecutors to deal with complex financial cases and economic crimes; urges the authorities responsible to ensure a transparent and merit-based process of appointment of judges and prosecutors as well as a solid track-record of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial personnel; insists further on the need to ensure timely justice together with the unification of jurisprudence, the publication of, and easy access to, all judicial decisions immediately after adoption and the random allocation of cases in all courts; is concerned about the legal uncertainty arising from the number of judges carrying out their duties in acting capacity; reiterates the fact that a strong and independent judiciary is key to Serbia’s capacity to meet EU membership criteria;

1. The EEW shall be a judicial decision issued by a competent authority of a Member State with a view to obtaining objects, documents and data from another Member State for use in proceedings referred to in Article 5.

On the second method, France states that it follows from the Commission decision on the State aid implemented by Belgium for ABX Logistics, in which the Commission examined a negative sale price, having, as in this case, the character of a market price, by comparing it to the costs which the State shareholder would actually bear in the event of a voluntary liquidation or compulsory liquidation as assessed by an independent third party.

Achieve a continuous increase in the rate of execution of court rulings.

Of major importance is the political view expressed in conclusions 33, 36 and 37 of the Tampere European Council held on 15 and 16 October 1999, to the effect that the principle of the mutual recognition of judicial decisions should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the EU and should be applied as quickly as possible and as a matter of priority to pre-trial orders, ‘in particular to those which would enable competent authorities quickly to secure evidence and to seize assets which are easily movable’.