REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la
Unión Eu opea*
Exclusiona y ules o e idence: a ionale and Eu opean
Union Law
RICCARDO BIANCHI
Fiscalía de Milán. In es igado isi an e en la Uni e sidad de Valladolid
icca do.bianchi@u a.es
ORCID: 0009-0004-8638-323X
Recibido: 14/10/2024. Acep ado: 14/12/2024
Cómo ci a : Bianchi, Ricca do, “La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión
Eu opea”, Re is a de Es udios Eu opeos, 85 (2025): 430-463.
A ículo de acceso abie o dis ibuida bajo una Licencia C ea i e Commons A ibución
4.0 In e nacional (CC-BY 4.0)
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.24197/ ee.85.2025.430-463
Resumen: Análisis, compa ación y c í ica son las bases de los es udios compa a i os. Es e abajo,
que se cen a en las eglas de exclusión de p uebas, u iliza la compa ación en e los sis emas
i aliano y español con es obje i os: (a) en ende la azón de se de la exclusión; (b) aplica las
conclusiones al de echo de la Unión Eu opea pa a de e mina si (b.1) exige la expulsión de cie as
p uebas o (b.2) obliga al juez nacional a no aplica la egla; (c) y e alua si los balances ealizados
po el juez son una solución adecuada en el con ex o eu opeo.
Palab as cla e: p ueba ilíci a; sup emacía eu opea; de echos undamen ales; p opo cionalidad
Abs ac : Analysis, compa ison, and c i ique a e he ac ions ha cons i u e compa a i e s udies.
This wo k, which ocuses on exclusiona y ules o e idence, employs legal compa ison be ween
he I alian and Spanish sys ems o h ee pu poses: (a) o unde s and he a ionale behind he
exclusion o e idence om p oceedings; (b) o apply he conclusions d awn o Eu opean law, o
de e mine whe he he la e (b.1) equi es he exclusion o ce ain e idence o (b.2) con e sely
obliges he na ional judge o dis ega d he ule; (c) inally, o use he esul s o he compa ison o
assess whe he judicial balancing is an app op ia e solu ion, e en wi hin he Eu opean con ex .
Keywo ds: illegally ob ained e idence; Eu opean sup emacy; undamen al igh s; p opo ionali y
* Es e abajo se ha ealizado en el ma co de un pe iodo de in es igación en la Uni e sidad
de Valladolid, sob e la egulación de la p ueba ilíci a en España. El p oyec o de
in es igación ha sido ap obado an o po la Uni e sidad de Milán como po la
Uni e sidad de Valladolid).
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 431
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
INTRODUCTION
How a e igh s capable o being limi ed? The issue is he esul o
ex ensi e doc inal elabo a ion, and A icle 52 o he Cha e o
Fundamen al Righ s o he Eu opean Union syn hesizes i s conclusions in
ela ion o Union law.
Limi a ions equi e a legal p o ision, which mus no in inge on he
essen ial con en o he igh and mus be necessa y and aligned wi h
objec i es ecognized by Union law o wi h he need o p o ec o he s’
igh s and eedoms. This mus be in acco dance wi h he p inciple o
p opo ionali y. Thus, equi emen s o es ic ions a e summa ized as
ollows: legi imacy o he aim pu sued, sui abili y o he measu e o he
aim, necessi y as he absence o al e na i es, and s ic p opo ionali y. The
la e in ol es balancing con lic ing in e es s o alloca e ic o y and de ea
be ween hem in gi en ci cums ances (in ci cums ance X, in e es Y
p e ails).
Ha ing said ha , he aim o his wo k is o employ compa a i e
me hodologies o iden i y he in e es ha exclusiona y ules a e in ended
o p o ec . The indings will se e o de elop conside a ions ela ed o
Eu opean law.
1. RIGHTS VS. FACT-FINDING: THE LACK OF BALANCING. STC 114/1984
F. P. N. was peace ully alking on he phone, unawa e ha his
in e locu o was eco ding he con e sa ion. He should ha e been mo e
cau ious, as he eco ding ul ima ely cos him his job, due o p o essional
sho comings and b eaches o loyal y o he company. He challenged he
decision, bu he judge in Alican e ejec ed his claims, as did he Sup eme
Cou .
F. P. N. appealed o he Cons i u ional Cou , p esen ing wo claims:
iola ion o A icle 18.3 o he Spanish Cons i u ion (sec ecy o
communica ions) and in ingemen o A icle 24 ( he igh o a ial “con
odas las ga an ías”).
The judges’ easoning (STC 114/1984
1
) ollowed a laby in hine pa h
bu le us y o igu e i ou : A icle 10.1 o he Spanish Cons i u ion
es ablishes undamen al igh s as “in iolables”; hese include he igh s
enume a ed in Sec ion I, Chap e II, Ti le I o he Cons i u ion. A icle 24.2
1
STS nº 114/1984 (29 h No embe ), nº p oc. 167/1984. ECLI:ES:TC:1984:114.
432 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
manda es p ocedu es “con odas las ga an ías” and any iola ion o hese
p ocedu es would o end he p inciple o equali y (A icle 14 o he
Cons i u ion) be ween he pa ies. Consequen ly, i an ac ion iola es hese
igh s, i is deemed in alid.
2
Thus, whe e he e is a iola ion o legali y, i is necessa y o de e mine
whe he his cons i u es an in ingemen o a undamen al igh . In ac ,
no e e y illegali y comp omises undamen al legal posi ions.
The uling was g oundb eaking, a leading case, and he ollowing yea
i was codi ied in o law: A icle 11.1 LOPJ
3
. “E idence ob ained […] by
iola ing undamen al igh s o eedoms shall ha e no e ec ”. Bu he law
goes u he : bo h e idence ha is di ec ly ob ained by iola ing
undamen al igh s and e idence ha is ga he ed indi ec ly a e poisoned
4
.
The Cou balanced legali y agains he in e es in es ablishing he
ac s. The goal was o disco e he c i e ion acco ding o which one
p e ails o e he o he when a ule is iola ed. The judges iden i ied his
c i e ion in undamen al igh s.
a) When does ac - inding p e ail o e legali y? When no
undamen al igh is iola ed. E idence is i egula bu may be used.
b) When does legali y p e ail o e ac - inding? When a undamen al
igh is iola ed. E idence is i egula and canno be used.
The weighing ha was conduc ed was no be ween igh s and ac -
inding. The s a emen “ he iola ion o a undamen al igh causes he
non-usabili y o e idence” does no balance any igh s; i ins ead se s an
ex e nal limi o he es ablishmen o he ac s. I is his limi ha o dina y
2
The commen a o cla i ied an impo an di e ence: he iola ion o a undamen al igh
makes he e idence ilíci a; he use o such e idence in he p oceedings in inges he igh
o a ial con odas las ga an ías. See González Mon es, José Luis (2006), “La p ueba
ilíci a”, Pe sona y De echo, 54, p. 368.
3
Ley O gánica del Pode Judicial (01/07/1985 nº 6).
4
Fo a comp ehensi e summa y on he subjec o illegal e idence in Spain, see: Mi anda
Es ampes, Manuel (2003), “La egla de exclusión de la p ueba ilíci a: his o ia de su
nacimien o y de su p og esi a limi ación”, Jueces Pa a la Democ acia, 43, pp. 53-66;
u he mo e: Planchadell Ga gallo, And ea (2020), “El la go y o uoso camino de la
p ueba p ohibida en nues a ju isp udencia”, in Asensio Mellado, José Ma ía and Alba
Rosell Co belle (eds.), De echo p oba o io y o os es udios p ocesales: Lib o homenaje
a Vicen e Gimeno Send a, Mad id, Ediciones Ju ídicas Cas illo de Luna, pp. 1645-1664.
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 433
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
judges will be called upon o e i y: i i is me , hen he e iden ia y
elemen will be excluded om he body o knowledge.
Balancing wo in e es s means de e mining in which ins ances one
p e ails and when he o he does. Acco ding o he Cons i u ional Cou
uling 114/1984, he e a e no si ua ions in which undamen al igh s all
apa (when he e is a iola ion o he ules): he e o e, hey we e no
balanced agains any hing.
The solu ion is no dissimila o I aly’s. Jus as in Spain he iola ion
o a undamen al igh is g ounds o he non-usabili y
5
o e idence, in
I aly he iola ion o a “p ohibi ion es ablished by law” (A icle 191 o he
Code o C iminal P ocedu e) has he same e ec
6
. In bo h cases, he
sys em is igid, wi h no oom o he o dina y judge o assess which in e es
should p e ail
7
. Un o una ely, e bal o ms do no co espond o eali y.
O a he , hey did un il ju isp uden ial in e p e a ions be ayed he spi i
o uling 114/1984, despi e being inco po a ed in o law (A icle 11.1
LOPJ).
Wha di e s is he complexi y o legal amewo ks: he I alian one
s ands ou o i s g ea e de ail and a ie y. I is mo e de ailed because i
ou lines speci ic e iden ia y p ohibi ions; i is mo e a ied because he e
a e p ohibi ions ha p o ec no only cons i u ional igh s bu also o he
in e es s ( o ins ance, he eliabili y o he e iden ia y elemen
8
).
Fo example, lag ancy and escape jus i y a sea ch ini ia ed by law
en o cemen . Excep o hese cases, he e is a p ohibi ion on conduc ing
sea ches. This is p o ided o in A icle 352 o he I alian Code o C iminal
P ocedu e.
By in oducing he ool o sea ch in o he legal sys em and se ing ou
i s ela ed egula ions, he legisla o has balanced igh s and u h.
The e o e, in iolabili y o he home will yield when i comes o sea ching
5
To a oid con usion, I ha e p e e ed o use he e m “usabili y” as he ansla ion o he
I alian “u ilizzabili à”, and no he mo e ambiguous “admissibili y”. In he nega i e o m,
he e ms a e “non-usabili y” and “inu ilizzabili à”.
6
See wo o he ea lies and mos impo an doc inal w i ings on he subjec : Galan ini,
No ella (1992), L’inu ilizzabili à della p o a nel p ocesso penale, Pado a, CEDAM;
Nobili, Massimo (1991), “Di ie i p oba o i e sanzioni”, Gius izia Penale, 3, pp. 641-651.
7
Tonini, Paolo and Ca lo a Con i (2014), Il di i o delle p o e penali, Milano, Giu è,
p. 104.
8
In Spain as well he e a e p ocedu al ules ha p o ec in e es s di e en om
undamen al igh s ( o example, he p ohibi ion o leading ques ions), bu hese a e no
a ibu able o he p o isions o A icle 11.1 LOPJ.
434 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
o he co pus delic i a e lag ancy. The limi a ion on aking ac ion ou o
hese ci cums ances is designed o sa egua d he indi idual’s igh s. Bu i
we look solely a A icle 352, we will be unawa e o wha happens o
e idence ga he ed in b each o his egula ion. In e um na u a, being
illegal and unusable a e no bound by any necessa y connec ion. The
p ohibi ion p o ec s igh s, bu on ologically no hing equi es a p ohibi ion
o be linked o he non-usabili y o e idence. A legal no m is equi ed: i is
A icle 191 o he Code o C iminal P ocedu e, when i comes o a gene al
de ec ; i is he speci ic sanc ion, when i comes o a special de ec ( o
example, A icle 271 ega ding wi e apping). So, did he legisla o weigh
igh s agains he es ablishmen o he ac s? No, when i imposes non-
usabili y: he e legali y and u h we e weighed, and his was done by using
undamen al igh as balancing c i e ion.
To summa ize:
- Legisla o s es ablish ules ( o sea ches, wi e aps, o ced medical
examina ions) by balancing igh s and he es ablishmen o he ac .
- STC 114/1984 and he I alian Code in oduced non-usabili y by
balancing legali y and u h.
A his poin , a ques ion na u ally a ises. Is i easonable o always
p io i ize legali y in he ace o a undamen al igh ’s iola ion?
9
The e a e ules ha p o ec undamen al igh s. These disciplines
impose bounda ies: i iola ed, STC 114/1984 and he I alian C iminal
P ocedu e Code exclude he esul s o he ope a ions. Was i e ibly
di icul o espec hem? The e is no hing ha p e en s om e i ying he
ac , p o ided he ules a e espec ed.
Con i ma ion is p o ided by STC 114/1984, which ci ed o eign
ju isp udence e ec i ely and wi hou hesi a ion. The lesson is I alian and
was ound in he judgemen o he Cons i u ional Cou 34/1973
10
. In a
signi ican passage, he I alian Cou p oclaimed a “need o legali y […]
(pa icula ly when i comes o obse ing he Cons i u ion)”.
2. EXCEPTIONS TO EXCLUSIONARY RULES: AN OVERVIEW
9
De La Oli a San os, And és (2003), “Sob e la ine icacia de las p uebas ilíci amen e
ob enidas”, T ibunales de Jus icia, 8-9, pp. 91-108.
10
FJ 3.
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 435
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
Spanish cons i u ional case law has eached conclusions ha a e a
om he o iginal p oclama ions: i will gi e ele ance o good ai h in he
execu ion o he ac , which seems mo e aligned wi h a de e en logic
(wha ma e s is discou aging will ul abuses by he au ho i ies) a he han
wi h he p o ec ion o igh s. To sum up, he si ua ions ha de e mine he
o e coming o he exclusiona y ule a e as ollows
11
.
a) he agen s’ good ai h in ob aining he e idence (STC 22/2003
12
) o
he p i a e na u e o he pe son ob aining i (STS 116/2017 and STC
97/2019
13
);
b) wi h ega d o he ui o he poisonous ee doc ine, he
independence o e idence (i he second e idence does no depend on he
in alid one, i will be conside ed alid), he ine i abili y o disco e y (i
he in alid ac had no been ca ied ou , he second piece o e idence would
s ill ha e been ob ained), he agili y o he link connec ing e idence (i
he e is a long chain o p ocedu al ac s be ween he in alid e idence and
he ques ionable one, i will be excessi e o exclude he la e o he
imeline), he andom na u e o disco e y ( o example, ce ain illegal
wi e aps may e eal a c ime di e en om he one o which hey we e
au ho ized), and, gene ally, la conexión de an iju idicidad (which equi es
a balancing be ween ac - inding and he p o ec ion o igh s, aking in o
accoun he ci cums ances o he speci ic case).
Excep ions o he ule canno be s udied analy ically in his
con ibu ion, excep o he subjec i e elemen in ob aining e idence.
11
See Planchadell Ga gallo, And ea (2014), La p ueba p ohibida: e olución
ju isp udencial: (comen a io a las sen encias que ma can el camino), Cizu Meno
(Na a a), Thomson Reu e s-A anzadi; Díaz Cabiale, José An onio and Rica do Ma ín
Mo ales (2002), “La eo ía de la conexión de an iju icidad”, Jueces Pa a la Democ acia,
43, pp. 39-49; Lozano Ei oa, Ma a (2012), “P ueba p ohibida y con esión: la excepción
de la «conexión de an iju idicidad»”, Re is a Gene al de De echo P ocesal, 28.
Rega ding he mos ecen excep ion: Ca illo del Teso, Ana (2020), “El diálogo judicial
sob e las “lis as Falciani”: los di e en es c i e ios de su admisión como p ueba”, in
Asensio Mellado, José Ma ía and Alba Rosell Co belle (eds.), De echo p oba o io y o os
es udios p ocesales: Lib o homenaje a Vicen e Gimeno Send a, Mad id, Ediciones
Ju ídicas Cas illo de Luna, pp. 419-434. To unde s and how Spanish case law has been
inspi ed by U.S. law, see: Mi anda Es ampes, Manuel (2019), P ueba ilíci a y egla de
exclusión en el sis ema es adounidense: c ónica de una mue e anunciada, Mad id,
Ma cial Pons; Alcaide González, José Manuel (2013), La p ueba ilíci a penal:
decadencia y ex inción: ju isp udencia p ác ica compa ada con EEUU, Alhau ín el
G ande (Málaga), Edi o ial Ley 57.
12
STC nº 22/2003 (29 h Feb ua y), nº p oc. 4400/1999. ECLI:ES:TC:2003:22.
13
STC nº 97/2019 (16 h July), nº p oc. 1805/2017. ECLI:ES:TC:2019:97.
436 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
Indeed, his wo k aims a iden i ying he co ec in e es p o ec ed by he
exclusion o e idence, in o de o deduce ele an consequences o
Eu opean law. To achie e his goal, i is impo an o examine he concep
o good ai h, and his analysis will be ca ied ou in he ollowing
pa ag aph.
3. EXCLUSIONARY RULES’ TELEOLOGY AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
Good ai h is he excep ion ha STC 22/2003
14
c ea ed o he
exclusion o e idence ob ained di ec ly om he iola ion o a
undamen al igh .
The cou ’s conclusions igno ed a signi ican ac : main aining he ule
o exclusion o illegal e idence en ails ce ain co olla ies ha mus be
espec ed - among hese ones, he iola ion o a igh equi es o be
objec i e.
15
Facing he choice be ween he use o exclusion o he e iden ia y
elemen , he judge esponds by de e mining whe he a undamen al igh
has been unduly iola ed, ega dless o he ac o ’s in en o aul . The
subjec i e elemen is a ma e o a u u e c iminal ial agains he iola o :
he dialec ic be ween p osecu ion and de ense will yield he co ec
answe . Con e sely, in ospec i e analysis is o no in e es in he
p oceeding whe e he iola ion occu ed, gi en ha e iden ia y pu poses
a e indi e en o he good o bad ai h o he p ocedu al p o agonis . Wha
ma e s is whe he a undamen al igh (o a p oba i e p ohibi ion - A icle
191 o he I alian Code) has been iola ed (STC 114/1984 and A icle 11.1
LOPJ). Viola ing a legal igh has an en i ely objec i e signi icance, and
e en assuming a lack o in en o aul , he ou come would emain
unchanged: once he o ense has been es ablished, i emains. How could
good ai h exclude he p ejudice o he igh ?
Ha ing es ablished ha good ai h is incapable o mi aculous pa dons,
he ou come leads us o an inqui y in o he a ionale behind non-usabili y.
I is no he de e en e ec , a pu pose ha belongs o c iminal sanc ions
and is hus un ela ed o he exclusion o e idence. Indeed, de e ence does
14
STC nº 22/2003 (29 h Feb ua y), nº p oc. 4400/1999. ECLI:ES:TC:2003:22.
15
Mi anda Es ampes, Manuel (2010), “La p ueba ilíci a: la egla de exclusión p oba o ia
y sus excepciones”, Re is a Ca alana de Segu e a Pública, 22, p. 140. The au ho
highligh s he con adic ion be ween STC 22/2003 and 114/1984.
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 437
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
no equa e wi h he p o ec ion o legali y, as penalizing iola ions o no ms
may ha e no de e en e ec wha soe e (as we ha e seen in cases o
ac ions conduc ed wi hou in en o aul ). The non-usabili y is a pa hology
wi h physiological pu poses: i p o ec s a legali y ha sa egua ds igh s
and, in his way, ensu es a ai ial
16
. Non-usabili y does no p e en ; i
epai s and p o ec s
17
.
In ou Eu ope a need o ai ness in ials p e ails, ensh ined by A icle
6 o he Eu opean Con en ion: “e e yone is en i led o a ai […] hea ing”.
P ognos ic o acles abou de e en e ec i eness a e insigni ican o
achie e ai ness: i undamen al igh s a e unduly iola ed, i does no
ma e ha he exclusion o e idence canno se e p e en i e pu poses
(e en i he police ac ed in good ai h). Assuming ha undue iola ion and
injus ice a e synonyms, he o me will no unde go me amo phosis due o
he ope a o s’ good ai h: he absence o p e en i e necessi ies is no Ci ce;
i does no ans o m injus ice in o ai ness.
Cons i u ions add ess his issue wi hin na ional bo de s: A icle 111 o
he I alian Cons i u ion equi es a “ ai ial egula ed by law”. A icle 24
o he Spanish Cons i u ion p oclaims one “con odas las ga an ías”.
E go, he sanc ion o non-usabili y is p ocedu al a he han
subs an i e; he p ima y objec o p o ec ion is legali y, and i is c ucial o
emphasize he alue o such legali y in sa egua ding cons i u ional igh s:
a ial would no be ai i i conside ed e idence ob ained in iola ion o
no ms ha p o ec undamen al igh s... ega dless o wha he majo i y o
he Eu opean Cou migh hink
18
. Indeed, much has been said abou good
16
The cons i u ional impo ance is emphasized by Asensio Mellado, José Ma ía (2013),
“La exclusión de la p ueba ilíci a en la ase de ins ucción como exp esión de ga an ía de
los de echos undamen ales”, Dia io la Ley, 8009, p. 2: he au ho consequen ly asse s
he need o he illegali y o e idence o be decla ed immedia ely. The doc inal
“dialogue” ha his a icle has c ea ed is in e es ing. See: Gimeno Send a, Vicen e (2013),
“La imp ocedencia de la exclusión de la p ueba ilíci a en la ins ucción (con es ación al
a ículo del P o . Asencio)”, Dia io la Ley, 8021. The la e a icle challenges he p e ious
hesis, acco ding o which he Juez de ins ucción is au ho ized o exclude in alid
e idence. Speci ically, he doc inal wo k a gues ha he e alua ion o e idence (a phase
dis inc om i s collec ion) alls unde he ju isdic ion o he deciding judge.
17
See Roca Ma ínez, José Ma ía, P ocesos y P ueba P ohibida, Mad id, Dykinson, S.L.,
p. 140; A men a Deu, Te esa (2020), “P ueba ilíci a y egla de exclusión: pe spec i a
subje i a”, in Asensio Mellado, José Ma ía and Alba Rosell Co belle (eds.), De echo
p oba o io y o os es udios p ocesales: Lib o homenaje a Vicen e Gimeno Send a,
Mad id, Ediciones Ju ídicas Cas illo de Luna, pp. 119-120.
18
Ölçe , Pina (2013), “The Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s: The Fai T ial Analysis
Unde A icle 6 o he Eu opean Con en ion o Human Righ s”, in S ephen Thaman (ed.),
438 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
ai h, he de e en e ec , legali y and igh s; and in S asbou g, ce ain
esonances ha e inspi ed he dissen ing opinions o Meye , Pe i i,
Spielmann, and Ca illo Salcedo ( uling Schenk . Swi ze land, 1988
19
).
They objec ed o he no ion ha A icle 6 o he Eu opean Con en ion does
no manda e he exclusion o e idence ob ained in iola ion o he
gua an ees equi ed by he Con en ion. The majo i y, howe e , deduced i
om h ee obse a ions: ha he Cou ’s ole is o e iew he ai ness o
he c iminal p oceedings as a whole, ha he applican had g ea
oppo uni ies o c oss-examina ion, and ha he imp ope eco ding was
no he only piece o e idence suppo ing he con ic ion. The e o e, he
ad e sa ial p inciple was upheld in his case, bu one mus wonde how he
Cou made he en i e jus ice o a ial depend on he dialec ic ega ding
he e idence. How can a ial be ai when e idence ha iola es a
undamen al igh has been used?
The Cou was less delica e in Khan . UK, 2000
20
, as i i mly
decla ed he iola ion o A icle 8 o he Con en ion: a S a e ha in e cep s
communica ions wi hou a legal basis b eaks he T ea y. Howe e , he ai
ial equi ed by A icle 6 was deemed una ec ed by he con adic ions we
obse ed in Schenk. Ye , e en in his ins ance, we hea echoes o ou
discussions: Judge Loucaides dissen ed
21
.
4. VIOLATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND BREACH OF LEGALITY
In c iminal p oceedings, unde wha ci cums ances does a iola ion o
a undamen al igh occu ? Despi e expec a ions, he answe seems
s aigh o wa d: when ules ha aim a p o ec ing cons i u ional igh s a e
iola ed. In o he wo ds, he e is a legali y ha gua an ees igh s and he
b each o igina es om i s iola ion. Bu wha kind o legali y?
Cons i u ional alone? O does i also include o dina y one?
Ce ain Spanish legal li e a u e has pu o wa d a igid al e na i e: one
o he o he kind o legali y. I a gued ha discou se on undamen al igh s
Exclusiona y Rules in Compa a i e Law, Do d ech , Sp inge , pp. 371-399; wi h ega d
o mo e speci ic opics, see: Bachmaie Win e , Lo ena (2013), “T ansna ional C iminal
P oceedings, Wi ness E idence and Con on a ion: Lessons om he EC HR’s Case
Law”, U ech Law Re iew, 9, pp. 127-146.
19
Case Schenk . Swi ze land (18/07/1988), ap. nº 10862/1984.
20
Case Khan . UK (12/05/2000), ap. nº 35394/1997.
21
Fo subsequen de elopmen s in he case law o he ECHR, see he inal pa ag aph
(n°7).
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 445
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
Access o elephone a ic da a e eals in ima e aspec s o li e, such
as habi s, loca ions, and people. This leads o he p ohibi ion: a na ional
law ha does no es ic he acquisi ion o such da a o he in es iga ion
(and p e en ion as well) o se ious c imes is con a y o Union law. I
anapho a iden i ies signi ican epe i ions, hen he ecu en use o he
wo d “se ious” su ely unde sco es he Cou ’s cen al message: in he
quo ed passage alone, he wo d “se ious” appea s h ee imes. The e a e
wo easons o his conclusion: legisla i e p opo ionali y (which equi es
legi ima e objec i es and measu es ha a e necessa y and p opo iona e o
he objec i e) and he p o ec ion o p i a e li e.
To e alua e he se iousness o an in es iga i e measu e, wha c i e ia
should be applied? The Ad oca e Gene al p oposed conside ing he ypes
o da a examined and he du a ion o he measu e, as long pe iods o ime
p o ide mo e da a. Howe e , he Cou esponded ha e en b ie pe iods
can o e subs an ial insigh s in o a pe son’s li e.
Fu he , how should he se iousness o a c ime be assessed? The
Ad oca e Gene al ad ised conside ing he se e i y o he penal y, he
na u e o he c ime, he social ha m, and he ulne abili y o he ic im.
I is he judge’s ask o e alua e he legi imacy o he measu e. Gi en
ha he public p osecu o is an independen ye pa ial igu e, a legal
sys em ha empowe s he p osecu o o au ho ize access o da a does no
mee he impa iali y and neu ali y equi emen s s ipula ed by Eu opean
law. The obse a ion was ap , un il he amilia judicial p opo ionali y was
in e pola ed:
I is a equi emen o such a e iew ha he cou [...] mus be able o
s ike a ai balance be ween, on he one hand, he in e es s ela ing o he
needs o he in es iga ion in he con ex o comba ing c ime and, on he
o he , he undamen al igh s o p i acy and p o ec ion o pe sonal da a o
he pe sons whose da a a e conce ned by he access.
37
As we will explain in he inal pa ag aph (n°7), in ma e s o e idence
exclusiona y ules, he assessmen o p opo ionali y should be ca ied ou
solely by he legisla o , and no by he judge: i is a ma e o
app op ia eness.
37
Pa a. 52.
446 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
b) P ohibi ion o Use.
In he absence o Eu opean p o isions, i is up o he S a es o es ablish
p ohibi ions on he use o e idence, a conclusion de i ed by he Cou om
he p inciple o au onomy. The dis inc ion be ween he wo ca ego ies o
p ohibi ions is made clea by he judges’ wo ds: he S a es a e o se he
ules o he e alua ion o e idence, e en when i is ob ained “by gene al
and indisc imina e e en ion o such da a con a y o EU law”. Howe e ,
he p o ec ions o igh s ensh ined by he Union mus no be less a o able
han hose p o ided o simila si ua ions unde na ional law (p inciple o
equi alence). Addi ionally, he exe cise o igh s mus no be ende ed
excessi ely bu densome (p inciple o e ec i eness). E ec i eness is a
aluable concep , as i could be a plausible ool o en o cing p ohibi ions
on use. The Cou did no ully emb ace his, o did so only pa ially: while
he igh o con es e idence is p ese ed, Union law does no manda e he
exclusion o e idence. The e o e, da a ob ained in iola ion o Eu opean
law will only be inu ilizzabili i he pa y has no been p o ided wi h
oppo uni ies o con es he e idence. This is a consequence de i ed om
a s ic in e p e a ion o he igh o a ai ial.
The Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s’ wo ds
38
esona e in he
judgemen like an echo.
5. 4. P oku a uu : he implica ions o I alian Law
The p e ious e sion o A icle 132 o D.lgs. 196/2003
39
was deemed
by I alian judges o be compa ible wi h A icle 15 o Di ec i e 2002/58.
This p o ision g an ed he compe ence o acqui ing elephone eco ds o
a mo i a ed o de o he public p osecu o
40
; he e was no es ic ion o
se ious c imes. I has been no ed ha some Eu opean judgemen s
an icipa ed he P oku a uu ’s p oclama ions, bu in I aly he p e ailing
iew bypassed hem: i emphasized ha he I alian p osecu o is an
au ho i y endowed wi h he necessa y gua an ees and ha he assessmen
38
See § 4.
39
D.lgs. 30/06/2023 nº 196.
40
Tonini, Paolo and Ca lo a Con i (2021), Manuale di p ocedu a penale, Milano,
Giu è, pp. 432-433.
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 447
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
o c iminal se e i y can be made in conc e e e ms (i.e., he p osecu o can
assess p opo ionali y, c ea ing a balancing ac subjec o judicial
e iew)
41
.
The CJEU’s P oku a uu uling has de ini i ely e u ed hese
a gumen s, demanding a swi legisla i e esponse. This in e en ion was
implemen ed on Sep embe wi h D.L. 132/2021
42
, which amends he
abo e-men ioned A icle 132. Today, he p o ision is in line wi h he
Cou ’s equi emen s, also es ablishing ha i s iola ion esul s in he non-
usabili y o he ob ained e idence.
Meanwhile, unce ain ies pe sis ed ega ding he a e o e idence
acqui ed in iola ion o Eu opean law. A icle 15 o Di ec i e 2002/58
imposes a p ohibi ion on he use o such e idence, as s a ed by he Cou .
In I aly, A icle 191 Code o C iminal P ocedu e de e mines he
consequences o iola ing p ohibi ions: he non-usabili y o da a and i s
ele ance a any s age o he p oceedings; any co ec i e measu es by he
p elimina y in es iga ing judge a e ine ec i e, as he e is no p o ision o
cu ing he de ec . Case law quickly sol ed he issue by downg ading he
decision o a measu e wi h ague e ms and no di ec e ec s
43
. This is
inco ec . I a CJEU uling iden i ies an incompa ibili y be ween na ional
and Eu opean law, he e can be no indi ec e ec : he uling is di ec ed a
he lowe cou bu gene a es e ga omnes and e oac i e e ec s; any s a e
au ho i y, including judges, has he obliga ion o ac o esol e he
no ma i e con lic
44
.
5. 5. Enc oCha
A d ug a icking ne wo k seemed o ho e ac oss Eu opean bo de s,
ca ching he a en ion o mul iple public p osecu o s’ o ices. The
F ank u o ice op ed o a Eu opean In es iga ion O de ( h ee, wo o
which we e ac ually supplemen a y), aiming a ob aining da a cap u ed by
a ojan in il a ed in enc yp ed con e sa ions ia he Enc oCha sys em
45
,
41
Fo ins ance, Cass. 4873/2019 (ud. 25/09/2019).
42
D.L. 30/09/2021 nº 132 (A icle 1). The dec ee was con e ed by L. 23/11/2021 nº 178.
43
Cass. 33116/2021 (ud. 02/07/2021).
44
Adam, Robe o and An onio Tizzano, Manuale di di i o dell’Unione Eu opea, To ino,
Giappichelli, pp. 351-354.
45
Fo an in oduc ion o he opic, e e o: Pe al a Gu ié ez, Al onso and F ancisco Ja ie
Pa a Iglesias (2021), “Inco po ación de p ueba penal ob enida en p oceso judicial
448 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
wi h F ance as des ina ion. The coope a ion was success ul, bu he Be lin
Regional Cou did no o e look he lessons o P oku a uu . A p elimina y
uling was eques ed.
F om his lesson, he Be lin Cou concluded ha (a) i is up o he
judge o issue an EIO, (b) limi ing i o he in es iga ion o se ious c imes
suppo ed by ac s, and (c) e i ying i s legi imacy in ligh o na ional law,
(d) he p inciple o equi alence, and ( ) e ec i eness. The in es iga ion
mus ocus on se ious c imes, and he o de mus be based on ac s, as
equi ed by he p inciples o p opo ionali y and necessi y se ou in A icle
6 o Di ec i e 2014/41. Fu he mo e, he p inciple o equi alence dic a es
ha da a collec ed om an in e cep ion which is no o de ed by a judge
and o a c ime which is no jus i iable unde Ge man law a e inadmissible.
Bu he co e o he objec ions lies in he e ec i eness o Union law: in
Be lin, he judge connec ed his o he p ohibi ion o using e idence ha
con a enes Eu opean law (illegi imacy o he EIO).
The Ad oca e Gene al o he Cou o Jus ice esponded nega i ely:
he assessmen o e idence is an issue ou side he scope o he EIO
Di ec i e; since i is no co e ed, he Membe S a es a e esponsible o
egula ing i . The Cou ag eed (CJEU Enc oCha , 2024
46
), jus i ying i
wi h he his o ical p inciple o au onomy (da ing back o CJEU Rewe-
Zen al inanz, 1976
47
): es ablishing p ocedu es o he p o ec ion o igh s
is a ee ope a ion o he S a es, in he absence o Eu opean ules; he
Membe S a es mus only ensu e a minimum le el o e ec i eness and
equi alence. F om hese p emises, he usual slogan ollowed, s a ing ha
he exclusion o e idence is ine i able only in he absence o a dialec ic on
e idence, a e ain o which he easoning ound a no ma i e link: i is
A icle 14, pa ag aph 7, o he EIO Di ec i e, which imposes a ai ial in
he assessmen o e idence.
6. EUROPEAN INTEREST AND NON-USABILITY: THE CONFLICT
ex anje o: casos Enc oCha y Sky ECC”, La Ley Penal, 149; Rubio Mo eno, Felipe
(2021), “Caso Enc oCha y la p ueba esul an e de las in e enciones masi as de
comunicaciones enc ip adas en p ocesos penales ex anje os”, La Ley Penal, 153. Fo a
c i ical analysis o he ma e , conside : Oe lemans, Jan-Jaap and Da e an Too , (2022),
“Legal Aspec s o he Enc oCha Ope a ion: A Human Righ s Pe spec i e”, Eu opean
Jou nal o C ime, C iminal Law and C iminal Jus ice, 30, pp. 309-328.
46
Case Enc oCha (30/04/2024), C-178/22. ECLI:EU:C:2024:372.
47
Case Rewe-Zen al inanz (16/12/1976), C-33/76. ECLI:EU:1976:188.
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 449
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
6. 1. Eu opean sup emacy
The p e ious pa ag aph a emp ed o iden i y a Eu opean in e es
p o ec ed by he p ocedu al sanc ion o non-usabili y. I ailed o do so,
despi e he sup ana ional legal o de ’s p o ec ion o legali y and igh s.
Howe e , he ela ionship be ween p ohibi ions on he use o e idence and
EU law is no limi ed o issues o compliance; i can also be examined in
e e se: an inqui y in o whe he such p ohibi ions a e con a y o he
sup emacy o ha legal o de .
Au onomous and in eg a ed wi hin na ional legal sys ems, he
Eu opean supe no a succeeds in asse ing i s e ec i e exis ence, ha is so
i al ha i does no equi e a na ional ans o ma ion o Eu opean laws, as
i hey we e o eign (CJEU Cos a / Enel, 1964
48
; his also applies o
di ec i es). In ac , hey a e no o eign; a he , hey ope a e wi hin he
Membe S a es wi hou any in e io i y complex, as i is impossible o
na ional au ho i ies o gi e p io i y o a domes ic measu e o e Eu opean
law. The consequence is he disapplica ion o any na ional ule ha is no
in con o mi y wi h he Eu opean s anda d, p o ided i is di ec ly applicable
(CJEU Simmen hal, 1978
49
). This concep applies o he igh agains c ime
ha ha ms he Union’s inancial in e es s, which A icle 325(1) TFEU and
A icle 1 o he PFI Con en ion equi e o be e ec i e
50
. The e o e,
na ional s a u es o limi a ions a e inapplicable
51
. Bu wha abou
p ohibi ions on he use o e idence, mu a is mu andis?
I seems ha he answe depends on iden i ying he in e es s
unde lying non-usabili y, s a ing wi h dis inguishing be ween he
sa egua ding o legali y ha p o ec s igh s and o he mo e p oblema ic
cases, especially when such p o ec ed in e es does no exis .
6. 2. Legali y in he p o ec ion o igh s
48
Case Cos a / Enel (15/07/1964), C-6/64. ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
49
Case Simmen hal (09/03/1978), C-106/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49. Mo e ecen ly: CJEU
(24/6/2019), Popławski, C-573/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:530.
50
Fo example: CJEU Eu o Box P omo ion and o he s (21/12/2021), C-357/2019.
ECLI:EU:C:2021:1034.
51
Recen ly: CJEU Lin (24/07/2023), C-107/23. ECLI:EU:C:2023:606.
450 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
The e is no ques ion when he legali y o he p ocedu e se es o
p o ec undamen al igh s
52
. I he due p ocess p esc ibed by law is no a
Eu opean in e es ha is s ong enough o impose exclusiona y ules (as
s a ed in he p e ious pa ag aph), i will a leas be alid o exclude
ins ances o an inomies be ween na ional and Eu opean law. The e o e,
no hing p e en s he ope a ion o he p ohibi ion on he use o e idence.
The G and Chambe has w i en wo ds ha s ongly sugges his
di ec ion: when a po en ial an inomy is hypo hesized, i is necessa y o
e i y whe he he disapplica ion would be a odds wi h he p o ec ion o
undamen al igh s
53
, which is also alid in c iminal p oceedings wi hin
he scope o Eu opean law, including in es iga ions (A icle 51 o he
Cha e )
54
.
One case is pa icula ly ele an o us, as i speci ically conce ns
exclusiona y ules o e idence. The co-de endan s encoun e ed an obs acle
in hei VAT obliga ions and did no pay hem, s ee ing a c iminal
o ganiza ion owa ds ax e asion. They we e in e cep ed illegally (by an
incompe en judge who au ho ized i ), bu hey could no ha e a oided
con ic ion e en wi hou he in e cep ed elemen s, which a e o be excluded
acco ding o he Bulga ian Code. Bu he e was one excep ion: a de endan
who was inc imina ed solely by inadmissible s a emen s, bu he Bulga ian
judge saw in his po en ial acqui al a iola ion o he Union’s inancial
in e es s. The e o e, he e e ed he p elimina y ques ions.
No disapplica ion is equi ed, as he Cou uled (CJEU Dzi e and
o he s, 2019
55
). The Bulga ian exclusiona y ule implemen s Eu opean
p inciples o legali y in legal p oceedings, which A icles 52 o he Cha e
and 2 TEU ( ule o law) manda e o he p o ec ion o undamen al igh s
ensh ined by he EU. Since in e cep ion in e e es wi h he igh o p i a e
li e (A icle 7 Cha e ), i is subjec o hese equi emen s, wi hou inancial
in e es s p e ailing o e a na ional p ohibi ion on he use o e idence ha
ein o ces hem. Thus, he esul ing e idence is en i ely inadmissible,
amquam non esse .
52
Fo a summa y on he impo ance o undamen al igh s, see: Bachmaie Win e ,
Lo ena (2018), “Fundamen al Righ s and E ec i eness in he Eu opean AFSJ”, Euc im,
1, pp. 56-63.
53
CJEU Lin ci ., pa a. 100.
54
La Rocca, Nadia and Al edo Gai o (2019), “Il con olimi e della u ela dei di i i
p ocessuali dell’impu a o: isioni e olu i e dalle Co i eu opee a legali à e
p e edibili à”, A chi io penale, 1 (web).
55
Case Dzi e and o he s (17/01/2019), C-310/16. ECLI:EU:C:2019:30.
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 451
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
6. 3. P oblema ic hypo heses
Conclusions a e alid when ules ensu e cons i u ional eedoms;
hose jus de eloped become insigni ican due o no ma i e sophisms
lacking alid easoning.
Some examples can be ound wi hin he I alian legal sys em. A he
ou se o an in e oga ion, he in e iewee is wa ned abou he ac ha i
hey make s a emen s ega ding ac s conce ning ano he ’s liabili y, hey
will assume he ole o a wi ness conce ning hose ac s. I such a wa ning
is no gi en, he Code p esc ibes he non-usabili y o he s a emen s and
he inadmissibili y o he ela ed es imony (A icle 64.3-bis). One would
need a map o ace he a ionale (and easonableness, A icle 3 o he
Cons i u ion) behind he ule; wha i migh be, howe e , is no known
56
.
Ne e heless, in ellec ual hones y admi s he complexi y o imagining ha
he accused could achie e impuni y due o a iola ion o his ule,
especially when he accusa ion conce ns o enses agains he Union’s
inancial in e es s. Howe e , i se es as an excellen heo e ical example.
Con e sely, i may happen ha wi e aps play a decisi e ole, e en in
his ype o p oceeding ( he Cou o Jus ice add essed such a case no oo
many yea s ago: he al eady men ioned Dzi e judgemen ). A icle 68 o
he I alian Cons i u ion equi es he au ho iza ion o he Membe ’s
espec i e Chambe in o de o in e cep hei communica ions. The
legisla o has lenien ly in e p e ed A icle 68 and implemen ed i in a a he
peculia way: i he hono able Membe happens o in e ene in a
con e sa ion ha is law ully in e cep ed, i is up o he Chambe o decide
whe he he wo ds may be used (A icle 6, L. 140/2003). In his
eccen ici y, he Cons i u ional Cou iden i ies p o iles o
uncons i u ionali y ( uling 390/2007
57
), bu only wi h e e ence o
s a emen s ha mus be used agains he non-hono able ci izen. The
a o emen ioned A icle 6 egula es he a e o inciden al ea esd opping,
ha is, in e cep ions o con e sa ions in which he in e en ion o he
pa liamen a ian occu s by shee chance: he in es iga o s could no ha e
an icipa ed hei in ol emen , as he hi d pa y being wi e apped was no
pa o he es eemed ci cle o he hono able membe ’s usual con ac s (had
his indi idual been pa o ha g oup, p io au ho iza ion om he
56
Co de o, F anco (2012), P ocedu a penale, Milano, Giu è, p. 659.
57
C. cos . nº 390/2007 (ud. 19/11/2007; dep. 23/11/2007). ECLI:IT:COST:2007:390.
452 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
Chambe would ha e been equi ed). A icle 6 in oduces a discipline ha
is o eign o A icle 68 o he Cons i u ion, which is de ised o p e en he
judicia y’s pe secu o y in en s agains he democ a ic sys em, which a e
unimaginable when i comes o inciden al in e cep ions: he in es iga o s
could no ha e o eseen ha in e en ion. Mo eo e , he cons i u ional ex
se s condi ions o “subjec ing membe s o pa liamen o in e cep ions”,
which means laying a ne a ound he channel h ough which someone
communica es o ecei es; his la e scena io does no exis in he case o
inciden al ea esd opping: he ne , cons uc ed a ound a hi d pa y and no
he pa liamen a ian, simply cap u es he la e ’s in usions. Ne e heless,
he ci ed o dina y egula ion is concise: o use hei wo ds, au ho iza ion
om he Chambe is equi ed; i denied, he con e sa ions would be
excluded as e idence (inu ilizzabili), bu his ou come could con lic wi h
he inancial in e es s o he Union. Ou side o A icle 68 o he
Cons i u ion, pa liamen a ians do no enjoy any cons i u ionally p i ileged
igh s compa ed o o dina y ci izens, and A icle 6 o L. 140/2003 lies
ou side o i : i was pa ially upheld by he Cons i u ional Cou , ye i
could be in con lic wi h he Eu opean in e es s we discussed.
The Cou o Jus ice has a icula ed mo e sensible wo ds han hose
o en ci cula ing wi hin he bas ions o poli ics: ensu ing he p o ec ion o
he innocen and gua an eeing he ai ness o he p ocedu e a e he
missions o p ocedu al ules; hey a e, howe e , un ela ed o sophis ica ed
ac ics aimed a secu ing impuni y. Speci ically: “The Membe S a es mus
also ensu e ha he ules o c iminal p ocedu e, laid down by na ional law,
pe mi e ec i e in es iga ion and p osecu ion o o ences linked o such
conduc ”
58
. In June 2018, he G and Chambe decla ed he incompa ibili y
o he Bulga ian p ocedu al ules on case dismissal wi h he Eu opean legal
o de
59
: a loophole allowed o ende s o e ade jus ice, con a y o he
p o ec ion o he Union’s inancial in e es s (in his case, he cha ges
ela ed o c iminal ac i i ies in ol ing cus oms du ies). I is complex o
de e mine he consequences o such con lic s when i conce ns dismissals
and in es iga ion deadlines; i is simple , howe e , in he case o he non-
usabili y o e idence: he ule mus be se aside.
58
Case Dzi e and o he s (ci ed abo e), pa a. 29.
59
Case Kole and o he s (05/06/2018), C-612/15. ECLI:EU:C:2018:392.
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 453
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
7. THE DANGERS OF JUDICIAL BALANCING
7. 1. App op ia ion: igh s s. ac - inding
The exclusion o e idence ob ained in iola ion o a undamen al igh
has aced e osi e a acks o e he yea s. Among hese a acks is he
de o ion o p opo ionali y, which ju isp udence app op ia es h ough
in e p e a ions ha dis ega d he legisla o ’s compe ence (and he
Cons i u ional Cou ’s ole as he gua dian o laws).
Highligh ing he dange s ha a e hidden by judicial p opo ionali y
assessmen s, as opposed o hose p esc ibed by law, is c ucial o Eu opean
law as well, whe e p opo ionali y is a ele an concep (conside , o
example, he p opo ionali y conce ning he use o e idence ob ained
h ough a Eu opean in es iga ion o de
60
, o he admissibili y o e idence
wi h speci ic e e ence o EPPO p oceedings
61
).
STC 136/2000
62
concluded a case s emming om a eckless chase
h ough Mad id’s s ee s, aimed a se ling sco es be ween d ug deale s. I
ea i med he necessi y o a sea ch au ho iza ion o be jus i ied by
p esen ing ac s: Fac s and p opo ionali y a e he componen s o
jus i ica ion; i hey a e lacking, he in iolabili y o he home is
comp omised. Fo he Cou , a guing he p opo ionali y o he measu e
being au ho ized by he au ho i ies means add essing:
1. sui abili y, id es he measu e’s abili y o achie e he in ended goal;
2. necessi y, id es he insu iciency o less in usi e means;
3. he balance be ween he sac i ice endu ed by he igh and he
expec ed bene i .
The equi emen ha sui abili y and necessi y mus be conc e ely
es ablished is no hing new when i comes o he balancing accep ed by he
Code. The legisla i e ex has p esc ibed ha igh s can be limi ed only i
(1.) he es ic ion is easonable and (2.) i is una oidable; his is s a ed
abs ac ly, and i is a na u al consequence ha he exis ence o hese
equi emen s is conc e ely e alua ed. When he judge assesses sui abili y
and necessi y, hey do no ponde any hing.
60
Daniele, Ma cello and E silia Cal anese (2018), “E idence ga he ing” in Robe o
Kos o is (ed.), Handbook o Eu opean C iminal P ocedu e, Cham, Swi ze land,
Sp inge , p. 368.
61
B odowski, Dominik (2023), “Admissibili y o E idence in EPPO P oceedings”, New
Jou nal o Eu opean C iminal Law, 14, pp. 34-42.
62
STC nº 136/2000 (29 h May), nº p oc. 77/1996.
454 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
The mys e y lies in he hi d asse ion, which seems o be a
ci cumlocu ion o p opo ionali y in he s ic sense, bu i s mani es a ions
should be ound in he law, no in judicial assessmen s
63
. Codes should
de e mine when a measu e is disp opo iona e by imposing limi s: o
ins ance, conduc ing a sea ch a ou in he mo ning is disp opo iona e,
and he law speci ies his. Con e sely, asking he judge o e alua e he
“balance” is akin o handing hem a scale, a ool o weighing in e es s.
Balancing wo in e es s in ol es de e mining he cases in which one
p e ails and hose in which he o he does, based on ci cums ances ( o
example, dis inguishing be ween day and nigh , se ious and mino
o enses). I he judge iden i ies and weighs hese ci cums ances, hey a e
au ho ized o apply hei own e alua ion in addi ion o ha o he law.
In Spain, his has been legi imized no only by case law
64
bu also by
a e o m. A new design was in oduced by Ley O gánica 13/2015
65
. The
e o m has es o ed he a senal o echnological in es iga i e measu es:
wi e apping; access o s o ed elec onic da a; sea ches o compu e de ices
(including spywa e); ope a ions by unde co e agen s online; acking
de ices; ideo su eillance. The new Chap e IV (Ti le VIII, Book II)
in oduces his esh egula ion wi h gene al p o isions on he inno a i e
means o e idence ga he ing, and A icle 588-bis-a p oclaims he guiding
p inciples: among hem, we ind p opo ionali y. D i en by in e p e a i e
assis ance needs, he p o ision ou lines he pa ame e s wi hin which i
mus be sough : i mus exis be ween he sac i ice o he undamen al igh
and he compe ing public and/o hi d-pa y in e es s. Wha abou he
assessmen ? I is made by conside ing “all he ci cums ances o he case”,
wi h speci ic ega d o public in e es , including he g a i y o he o ense,
i s social impac , he echnological scope, he in ensi y o he e idence, and
he signi icance o he esul pu sued by he measu e. We ha e hus
iden i ied he elemen s in ol ed in disc e iona y decision-making.
63
The p opo ionali y is ecognized as an in e media e hesis by López Ba ja de Qui oga,
Jacobo (2019), T a ado de de echo p ocesal penal. Cizu Meno (Na a a), A anzadi-
Thomson Reu e s, pp. 1664-1665.
64
Fo example, STC 175/1997 (27/10/1997) ECLI:ES:TC:1997:175, STC 200/1997
(24/11/1997) ECLI:ES:TC:1997:200, and STC 239/1999 (20/12/199)
ECLI:ES:TC:1999:239.
65
LO 05/10/2015 nº 13 (modi icación de la Ley de Enjuiciamien o C iminal pa a el
o alecimien o de las ga an ías p ocesales y la egulación de las medidas de
in es igación ecnológica).
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 461
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
p oba o io y o os es udios p ocesales: Lib o homenaje a Vicen e
Gimeno Send a, Mad id, Ediciones Ju ídicas Cas illo de Luna, pp.
817-852.
González Cuélla Se ano, Nicolás (1990), P opo cionalidad y de echos
undamen ales en el p oceso penal, Mad id, Edi o ial Colex.
González Mon es, José Luis (2006), “La p ueba ilíci a”, Pe sona y
De echo, 54, pp. 363-383.
Ka alin, Lige i and Balázs Ga am ölgyi, Anna Ond ejo á, Ma ga e e on
Galen (2020), “Admissibili y o E idence in C iminal P oceedings in
he EU”, Euc im, 3, pp. 201-207.
La Rocca, Nadia and Al edo Gai o (2019), “Il con olimi e della u ela dei
di i i p ocessuali dell’impu a o: isioni e olu i e dalle Co i eu opee
a legali à e p e edibili à”, A chi io penale, 1 (web).
López Ba ja de Qui oga, Jacobo (2019), T a ado de de echo p ocesal
penal. Cizu Meno (Na a a), A anzadi-Thomson Reu e s.
López-Ba ajas Pe ea, Inmaculada (2009), “La e icacia e leja de la p ueba
p ohibida”, Re is a Gene al de De echo P ocesal, 19.
Lozano Ei oa, Ma a (2012), “P ueba p ohibida y con esión: la excepción
de la «conexión de an iju idicidad »”, Re is a Gene al de De echo
P ocesal, 28.
Mad id Boquín, Ch is a (2017), “La p ueba p ohibida an e el T ibunal
Eu opeo de De echos Humanos: luces y somb as del caso Zhe de c.
Uc aina”, Re is a de Es udios Eu opeos, Ex a 1, pp. 78-93.
Mi anda Es ampes, Manuel (2003), “La egla de exclusión de la p ueba
ilíci a: his o ia de su nacimien o y de su p og esi a limi ación”, Jueces
Pa a la Democ acia, 43, pp. 53-66.
462 Ricca do Bianchi
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
Mi anda Es ampes, Manuel (2004), El concep o de p ueba ilíci a y su
a amien o en el p oceso penal, Ba celona, Bosch.
Mi anda Es ampes, Manuel (2010), “La p ueba ilíci a: la egla de
exclusión p oba o ia y sus excepciones”, Re is a Ca alana de
Segu e a Pública, 22, pp. 131-151.
Mi anda Es ampes, Manuel (2019), P ueba ilíci a y egla de exclusión en
el sis ema es adounidense: c ónica de una mue e anunciada, Mad id,
Ma cial Pons.
Nobili, Massimo (1991), “Di ie i p oba o i e sanzioni”, Gius izia Penale,
3, pp. 641-651.
Oe lemans, Jan-Jaap and Da e an Too (2022), “Legal Aspec s o he
Enc oCha Ope a ion: A Human Righ s Pe spec i e”, Eu opean
Jou nal o C ime, C iminal Law and C iminal Jus ice, 30, pp. 309-
328.
Ölçe , Pina (2013). “The Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s: The Fai
T ial Analysis Unde A icle 6 o he Eu opean Con en ion o Human
Righ s”, in S ephen Thaman (ed.), Exclusiona y Rules in Compa a i e
Law, Do d ech , Sp inge , pp. 371-399.
Pe al a Gu ié ez, Al onso and F ancisco Ja ie Pa a Iglesias (2021),
“Inco po ación de p ueba penal ob enida en p oceso judicial
ex anje o: casos Enc oCha y Sky ECC”, La Ley Penal, 149.
Planchadell Ga gallo, And ea (2014), La p ueba p ohibida: e olución
ju isp udencial: (comen a io a las sen encias que ma can el camino),
Cizu Meno (Na a a), Thomson Reu e s-A anzadi.
Planchadell Ga gallo, And ea (2020), “El la go y o uoso camino de la
p ueba p ohibida en nues a ju isp udencia”, in Asensio Mellado, José
Ma ía and Alba Rosell Co belle (eds.), De echo p oba o io y o os
La p ueba ilíci a: la azón de se y el de echo de la Unión Eu opea 463
REVISTA DE ESTUDIOS EUROPEOS, 85 (2025): 430-463
ISSN 2530-9854
es udios p ocesales: Lib o homenaje a Vicen e Gimeno Send a,
Mad id, Ediciones Ju ídicas Cas illo de Luna, pp. 1645-1664.
Rebollo Ál a ez, José Luis (2022), “La p ueba ilíci a en la ju isp udencia
del T ibunal eu opeo de de echos humanos: de Schenck a Cwik”, in
Roca Ma ínez, José Ma ía (ed.), P ocesos y P ueba P ohibida,
Mad id, Dykinson, S.L., pp. 45-56.
Rubio Mo eno, Felipe (2021), “Caso Enc oCha y la p ueba esul an e de
las in e enciones masi as de comunicaciones enc ip adas en
p ocesos penales ex anje os”, La Ley Penal, 153.
Tonini, Paolo and Ca lo a Con i (2014), Il di i o delle p o e penali,
Milano, Giu è.
Tonini, Paolo and Ca lo a Con i (2021), Manuale di p ocedu a penale,
Milano, Giu è.
Ve meulen, Ge and Wendy De Bond , Yasmin Van Damme (2010), EU
c oss-bo de ga he ing and use o e idence in c iminal ma e s.
owa ds mu ual ecogni ion o in es iga i e measu es and ee
mo emen o e idence?, IRCP-se ies, Maklu.
